1 Monday, 2 February 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon to everybody in and around the
6 courtroom. Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-81-T,
9 the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Could we have the
11 appearances for the day, starting with the Prosecution, please.
12 MR. SAXON: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your
13 Honours. Dan Saxon and Carmela Javier for the Prosecution, and I would
14 like to introduce to the Trial Chamber our new colleague Ms. Lorna
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Saxon.
17 For the Defence.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours, and
19 good afternoon to all the participants in these proceedings. Mr. Perisic
20 will be represented by Gregor Guy-Smith and Novak Lukic, and with us are
21 our legal assistants, Chad Mair, Milos Androvic, and case manager Daniela
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic.
24 Mr. Saxon.
25 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, originally the schedule for today was
1 that Mr. Poje was going to testify first, followed by Mr. Van Der
2 Weijden. However, due to some travel plans of Mr. Van Der Weijden, with
3 your leave, the Prosecution will call Mr. Van Der Weijden first, followed
4 by Mr. Poje.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine. You may proceed.
6 MR. SAXON: Then Ms. Bolton will call the first witness.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Welcome, Ms. Bolton. Can we have your witness,
9 MS. BOLTON: Yes, thank you. Just before the witness is brought
10 in, Your Honours, it may assist the Court for me to clarify that there is
11 one portion of his report that the Prosecution does not intend to rely
12 upon, and that is pages 27 to 29 of his report dealing with incident --
13 scheduled incident B-10 in our indictment and that was in event of 27th
14 February, 1995, and it would appear that Mr. Van Der Weijden was given
15 the incorrect GPS
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
17 MS. BOLTON: The Prosecution is otherwise ready to deal with Mr.
18 Van Der Weijden, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
20 MS. BOLTON: But while he is being brought in, perhaps, Madam
21 Registrar, perhaps we could bring the first exhibit, which is 65 ter
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you are first going to lay a foundation for
24 it, ma'am.
25 MS. BOLTON: Yes, it's his curriculum vitae I'll be asking about.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: 65 ter 06907.
2 MS. BOLTON: .01.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 MS. BOLTON: Thank you.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, Mr. Van Der Weijden.
7 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Will you please make the declaration.
9 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
10 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may be seated. Yes,
12 Madam Bolton.
13 MS. BOLTON: Thank you.
14 WITNESS: PATRICK VAN DER WEIJDEN
15 Examination by Ms. Bolton:
16 Q. I'll just remind you, you have testified in these proceedings
17 before; correct?
18 A. Yes, I have.
19 Q. We're both speaking English, but it's important that we not speak
20 too quickly, as there is translation taking place, okay?
21 A. I understand.
22 Q. And I see that you have a paper copy of your report. You should
23 also see in front of you a display on which there's already
24 documentation. Is that working properly?
25 A. As far as I can see, it is.
1 Q. Okay. I'll just indicate for your assistance and the Court's
2 assistance that when I'm going to refer to page numbers in these
3 proceedings, they'll be the e-court page numbers. They don't correspond
4 exactly with your written report, so it's going to be of assistance if
5 you can just use the monitor and not your written report.
6 A. Okay. I will.
7 Q. In front of you, you should see a document. Do you recognise
8 that document?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. And what is that document?
11 A. It's my CV.
12 Q. And until -- if I read your CV correctly, until recently you were
13 a member of the Dutch army special forces; is that correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. How many years of service in total did you have with them?
16 A. 12 years.
17 Q. And what was the highest rank you achieved?
18 A. First lieutenant.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly slow down for the
20 benefit of the interpreters. Thank you.
21 MS. BOLTON:
22 Q. And did you have a specialty?
23 A. Yes, I had.
24 Q. What was that?
25 A. Sniper and --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Van Der Weijden and counsel, please slow down.
2 By "slow down," what the interpreters really want is that you pause
3 between question and answer so that they can interpret, have the time to
5 You may proceed.
6 MS. BOLTON: Thank you.
7 Q. You had indicated your specialty was as a sniper?
8 A. Yes. It was sniper, and later on also as a sniper instructor.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me just understand what you mean. Your
10 specialty is to snipe?
11 THE WITNESS: Military sniper, yes.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, that's what you do.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You snipe. Okay.
15 MS. BOLTON:
16 Q. And how does one develop expertise in being a sniper?
17 A. In my case, we run a sniper course within my unit, the unit that
18 I served in, which trains you to be -- in several aspects to become a
20 Q. What are those aspects?
21 A. Of course they would be shooting, especially at long range;
22 observation; stalking, which means getting -- getting close to the target
23 without being seen; and just tactics in general.
24 Q. Did you receive any ballistics training as part of your training
25 to become a sniper?
1 A. Yes, I have. They mostly covered the ammunition that we would be
2 using, of course.
3 Q. Any training on various weapons and their capabilities?
4 A. Yes, several.
5 Q. Sorry, several?
6 A. They would include the weapons that I've used in my unit, but,
7 also, I've worked with weapons that would be used by potential opponents,
8 just to get a feel of what they were capable of.
9 Q. Did you receive any medical training, specifically on wounds or
10 wound patterns as part of your training?
11 A. Not as a sniper, but as a special force operator I did have a
12 medical course which covers entry/exit wounds but not from a ballistics
13 point of view but more the medical, how to close them.
14 Q. Sorry, how to?
15 A. How to treat them.
16 Q. And looking at your curriculum vitae, am I correct that you had
17 two tours of duty in Bosnia
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. If I read the dates correctly, one was before the end of the
20 conflict and one was immediately after?
21 A. That is correct as well.
22 MS. BOLTON: I wonder if I could have this curriculum vitae
23 marked as the next exhibit, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, can you please tell us your
25 full names.
1 THE WITNESS: It would be Patrick Johannes Jozef Van Der Weijden.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. This CV is admitted into
3 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P490.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 MS. BOLTON: Madam Registrar, could I ask you to please bring up
7 65 ter 06907. There should also be a B/C/S version of this document.
8 Thank you.
9 Q. Sir, do you recognise the document in front of you?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Where do you recognise it from?
12 A. It's a document of -- the front page of the document that I've
13 written for a previous case.
14 Q. Okay. And that was the Dragomir Milosevic case?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. And dealing generally just with the layout of the report, would
17 it be fair to say it's organised into different sections?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. And the first section, if I understand it correctly, deals with
20 matters of general application?
21 A. Yes, just to provide a background information on the subject of
23 Q. We don't have time to deal with every aspect of your report. I'm
24 going to ask just some specific questions about this section.
25 MS. BOLTON: If I could ask Madam Registrar to please turn to
1 e-court page 6 on both the English and B/C/S versions.
2 Q. There's a heading there that says "rules of engagement." Do you
3 see that?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Can you explain to the Court what you're talking about when you
6 use the term "rules of engagement"?
7 A. If I talk about rules of engagement, those are the rules that I
8 always deployed with that were written for me at the highest level, so
9 the legal section probably of the -- in The Hague, which provides
10 guide-lines for the person on the ground for the -- in use of force.
11 Q. Okay. You served, when you were in Bosnia, with which force?
12 A. First, I served under UNPROFOR, so under the UN. Later on, I
13 served under NATO with IFOR.
14 Q. And in your training with those organisations, what were you
15 taught in terms of circumstances in which it was permissible to take
16 shots at civilians?
17 A. They were not allowed, unless a civilian would be a specific
18 threat to yourself or people nearby.
19 Q. And what were you to do if there were circumstances in which you
20 weren't sure if the person you were going to take a shot at was a
21 combatant or a non-combatant civilian?
22 A. You don't shoot.
23 Q. And what would the consequences be to you if you did shoot?
24 A. I would be court-martialed.
25 Q. You said that it was your understanding that these rules were set
1 at the highest level. What do you mean by the highest level?
2 A. Well, they would not be by my direct commander, although he would
3 pass them on to me, but it would be at the highest military level close
4 to the political level.
5 Q. Further down on that same page, sir, there is a heading called
6 "ranges," and there you've written:
7 "Long shots are possible only from dominating positions with an
8 overview from above ..." and then it says "(hilly areas)"; continues,
9 "... or along streets by means of using the natural shooting gallery the
10 street creates."
11 Could you just explain briefly why long shots are only possible
12 in those circumstances?
13 A. Well, the section in the report is about urban -- of sniping in
14 urban environments, and with urban environments the buildup areas, the
15 terrain is different, of course, than wooded areas where you would have
16 an overview -- a good overview, but in urban environment, especially in
17 cities with hills or high buildings, by positioning yourself on a hill or
18 in a high building, you would get -- you could dominate the terrain
19 around you. But because there are so many buildings that offer cover
20 against wood but also concealment, you can make use of the streets which
21 form tunnels for people -- form tunnels for your field of fire.
22 Q. Okay.
23 MS. BOLTON: If I could ask Madam Registrar to turn to the
24 appendix A of the report, which is page 58 in the e-court English version
25 and page 56 in the B/C/S version.
1 Q. This appendices contains information about weapons and
2 ammunitions you state used by the VRS. Can you tell us what your sources
3 were of your information as to what weapons and ammunition they had
4 available to them?
5 A. The information I got was from the weapon encyclopaedia from
6 Jane's Infantry Weapons, which states from every weapon, who produces it,
7 and who uses it, so which countries use it. Apart from -- during my
8 deployment under UNPROFOR, I've passed through checkpoints of Serb,
9 Croats, and Bosnian militias or armies, and I've seen those weapons
10 myself, so I know that those weapons were in country at the time.
11 MS. BOLTON: Okay. And turning to appendix B quickly, which is
12 pages 66 in the English version and page 75 in the B/C/S version. The
13 English version must be the next page -- or sorry, the preceding page.
14 Yes, thank you.
15 Q. Appendix B deals with something you called "target
16 identification." What would target identification have been within the
17 conflict before the Court?
18 A. Target identification would be to decide if you see a target, to
19 decide if it's combatant or non-combatant, so does it state a threat for
20 you because there are -- it might be civilians with weapons or just the
21 means you have to decide for yourself if the target is legitimate.
22 Q. And in this appendices, have you set out everything that you'd
23 consider in making a target identification, or ...
24 A. Well, there would be more because this is just a basic overview
25 of all the kinds of factors that could contribute to the decision.
1 Q. Can you think of anything that you've missed here?
2 A. I would have to see the second page, as well, the following page.
3 MS. BOLTON: Madam Registrar, could you ...
4 THE WITNESS: Well, when I wrote -- so what is in the report, as
5 well, when looking at civilians it's not only possible to identify them
6 as such by their physical characteristics because a child is, of
7 course -- a small child, say, 4 years old, they would not be above the
8 knob on the door, so if a child is in a doorway, you could see within an
9 instant that it's not an adult or a combatant because it's not high
10 enough. So it would be things like that, just things that normal
11 combatants wouldn't be doing, just normal life.
12 MS. BOLTON: If we could just, Madam Registrar, return to the
13 title pages of both the B/C/S and English version. I just want to ask
14 about the circumstances surrounding the preparation of this report.
15 Q. Could you tell us at whose request you prepared this report?
16 A. This report was prepared at the request of the Prosecutor in the
17 Milosevic case.
18 Q. Okay. That's the Office of the Prosecutor here in The Hague
19 A. Yes, it was.
20 Q. And can you tell us what issues you were asked to address in your
21 report or express an opinion on?
22 A. Off the top of my head, it would be to look at the incident side
23 and decide where possible shooting positions might have been that had a
24 direct view of the location, what range it would be in to measure the
25 range with a laser range-finder, and to decide if the shooter would have
1 opportunity to identify the victim -- to identify the victim, and just,
2 yeah, the type of weapons that were used in the conflict.
3 Q. What were you asked to do in terms of the type of weapons that
4 were used in the conflict?
5 A. What might be -- what weapon might have been used in combination
6 with which ammunition that could have caused the wounds.
7 Q. And you've indicated that you were to go to the possible shooting
8 sites. Were you provided with some information as to where those sites
10 A. I travelled together with the investigator on this case, and he
11 showed me the exact locations where the incident took place, and I also
12 received a DVD
13 are things I was able to know where exactly the incident took place.
14 Q. Apart from that DVD
15 investigator, did you receive any other materials?
16 A. I received a map of Sarajevo
18 Q. Did you receive any witness statements or just brief summaries of
19 the incidents?
20 A. Brief summaries of the incidents.
21 Q. How about medical reports? Did you receive medical reports for
22 any of the victims?
23 A. Not that I recall.
24 Q. And in your opinion, would those reports have been any assistance
25 to you in establishing the origin of fire in cases involving
1 long-distance shots?
2 A. It might have been, but there was -- in the brief description,
3 there was mentioning where they were hit, where the victims were hit, and
4 whether or not they were killed; and that also helps in just a general
5 specification as to which ammunition or weapon was used.
6 Q. If you'd had the medical reports, what additional information
7 might you have been able to glean?
8 A. Well, it might have provided some information -- more information
9 about the ammunition but not much more for me personally.
10 Q. So could that information have assisted in identifying the point
11 of origin of the shot?
12 A. Probably not because on the previous case that I've worked on, I
13 did have access to some medical records, but they were mostly written in
14 the hospital, and the only -- if I were to determine the point of origin,
15 I need to know exactly how that person was positioned when he was shot
16 because otherwise, I wouldn't -- if it's written in the hospital, I know
17 the extent of the wounds, but I don't know the exact position of the
19 Q. Okay. Did you use the same methodology for investigating each of
20 these incidents?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. Could you just talk the Court through an overview of the
23 methodology you used?
24 A. I would go to the area of the exact incident site pointed out to
25 me by the investigator. There, I would with my binoculars and laser
1 range-finder just look around me in a 360 radius to try and find possible
2 shooting locations because obviously, if there are new buildings, I would
3 have to take them into account, as well, but just get a feel for the
4 location and try to find out if there are locations that were already
5 there at the time from where the shooter might have used his weapon.
6 Then with the -- my personal photo camera, I would take
7 photographs in the direction of the possible shooting locations, then
8 visit the shooting locations and try to get -- find places where I would
9 have a direct view -- direct line of sight on the incident sites.
10 Q. So you started, if I understand you, at the incident site,
11 identified a potential shooting site or sites, and then visited those
12 potential shooting sites to test your theory. Is that fair?
13 A. That's true, yes.
14 Q. In terms of the weather conditions when you made your visits to
15 each of these incident sites, were they necessarily the same as the
16 weather conditions on the day of the actual shootings?
17 A. Well, they would not necessarily be because it was quite foggy on
18 the -- at the time of my visit, which limited view to approximately 4 to
19 500 metres. So in some cases, it was difficult to look further and try
20 to see if there might be shooting locations above 500 metres.
21 Q. What about seasonality? Did you take that into account at all?
22 A. Yes, I did. Yes. Well, the seasonality, you have to take into
23 account that deciduous trees shed their leaves during autumn, and in
24 winter-time, you can -- if you can look for them, you would also be able
25 to shoot through the tree more easily than in spring or summertime. So
1 the tree might offer cover or concealment for the victims during summer
2 or spring but not during autumn and winter-times.
3 Q. I have three individual incidents I'm going to ask you about, and
4 I'm going to start with incident B-11.
5 MS. BOLTON: If we could turn, please, to page 31 in the English
6 version of the report and 35 in the B/C/S version.
7 Q. You start this incident report with a heading called "situation,"
8 and then we have two paragraphs of information there that follows, sorry,
9 the heading "situation." Where did you get the information that's set
10 out there?
11 A. Situation, that is the brief description that was given from each
12 incident, so this is the brief description of what happened. The GPS
13 reading was also provided by me -- provided to me by the investigator,
14 and the alleged shooting position is the locations that were indicated by
15 the witnesses -- or by the victims or witnesses as the possible shooting
17 Q. Fair to say that this involved -- or this incident involved an
18 allegation of a sniping at a tram; is that fair?
19 A. That's correct.
20 MS. BOLTON: Could we bring up 65 ter 08598.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, counsel, what do you want the
22 Chamber to do with 65 ter 06907?
23 MS. BOLTON: I'm going to continue going back and forth to the
24 report, Your Honour, and at the end of the proceedings I'll be asking
25 that it be marked as an exhibit.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
2 MS. BOLTON:
3 Q. There is a photograph or there should be a photograph displayed
4 in front of you.
5 A. I can see it.
6 Q. Do you recognise the area in the photograph?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. Okay. And there should be a pen that you can use to write on the
9 monitor. I think it's on the side of the monitor closest to me.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you circle the area or the approximate area where you
12 understood the tram was when it was hit by fire in this incident?
13 A. Could I go back to the page again?
14 Q. Certainly. If you need to refresh your memory, that was page 31
15 of the English version, or it may be faster, with the Court's permission,
16 if you consulted your paper copy. It's page 30 in your paper copy.
17 MR. BOLTON: Does the Court have any difficulty with the witness
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Not unless the opposition has an objection.
20 MS. BOLTON: [Microphone not activated] ... friend shaking his
21 head, so I take it that he does not.
22 Q. If you want to turn --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Except that, Mr. Lukic, your shaking of the head
24 doesn't get recorded, so you don't have a record of your lack of
1 MR. LUKIC: No objection, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic.
3 MS. BOLTON: Page 30 to assist you, Witness.
4 THE WITNESS: Okay. I've seen the incident.
5 Q. All right. Could you assist us, then, by drawing what you
6 understood to be the location of the tram at the time it was hit?
7 A. The location would be -- oh.
8 Q. Okay. You've drawn a circle, and could you just put a "T" next
9 to that for tram?
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. Now, in this instant did you receive any information about the
12 possible or likely sources of the gun-fire?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. Okay. And what were the possibilities that were pointed out to
16 A. There were, in this case, two possibilities: the Grbavica -- or
17 the area of Grbavica as well as the Jewish cemetery.
18 Q. And just looking at the photograph, is the Jewish cemetery
19 visible there?
20 A. No. It would be to the bottom right-hand corner of the
21 photograph, but it's not visible in the photograph itself.
22 Q. Okay. And how about the Grbavica area? Is that visible?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. What area is that on the photograph?
25 A. It's the area south of the river.
1 Q. So you have drawn a rectangle around that area; is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Did you visit the location that you've circled on the map?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. Or on the photo, sorry. What date and year did you visit?
6 A. Would be January -- no, that's not correct. November 2006.
7 Q. Okay. And sorry, you told us earlier when you visited that it
8 was foggy. Is that this day that you are talking about?
9 A. This is not a picture taken by myself, so ...
10 Q. No, I meant on the November 2006. Is that what you're talking
11 about as having been a foggy day?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And how would the weather conditions affect your findings?
14 A. Well, in this case, they wouldn't affect my findings because the
15 place that I identified as the possible shooting location was within
16 view, so not over 500 metres.
17 Q. Okay. At this instant when you visited the actual site location,
18 it involved the tram. Did you go and stand on the actual tram tracks to
19 take your readings with your binoculars and range-finder?
20 A. I stood on the tracks for a moment, but, of course, there were
21 still trams running, so I used a position that was as close to the tracks
22 as possible.
23 Q. And in relation to this incident, given all the factors, would a
24 variance of a few metres make any difference to your findings?
25 A. In this case, it would not.
1 Q. What were your conclusions in relation to this incident as to the
2 likely source of the fire?
3 A. They would have to be from down this street.
4 Q. Okay, and you're marking that for the record. Any -- and what --
5 you've indicated from down that street. What did you think was the most
6 likely location on that street?
7 A. It would have been somewhere in this building.
8 Q. Okay. So you circled that building, and could you put an "S" on
9 that building for shooter?
10 A. [Marks]
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would it be helpful to put a "G" inside the
12 rectangle to designate Grbavica?
13 MS. BOLTON: Good idea, Your Honour.
14 Q. If you could put a "G" inside that rectangle so we know that
15 that's the Grbavica area.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. The building that you've circled and put the "S" next to, sir,
18 are you aware of whether that building has a name?
19 A. I was told these buildings are called the Matalka buildings.
20 Q. What was it that made you conclude that that was the most likely
21 source of fire?
22 A. Because as I've stated in the introduction about urban sniping,
23 this is exactly the kind of tunnels streets would create which -- they
24 work both ways. They lead the shooter to the target, but from the target
25 it also leads back to the shooter, so it's almost impossible to be in a
1 different position than from down the street to fire on the tram.
2 Q. Okay.
3 MS. BOLTON: I wonder if that photograph could be marked as the
4 next exhibit, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: May it be so marked and be given an exhibit
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P491.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 MS. BOLTON:
10 Q. You've indicated you were going to try to determine with your
11 laser range-finder the distance between the incident site and the likely
12 shooter location. What was that distance?
13 A. The distance was as I've written in the report, 312 metres,
14 measured from the incident site to the building.
15 Q. Were you actually able to visit that building?
16 A. Yes, I was.
17 Q. And what part of the building did you visit?
18 A. Together with the investigator, I went up into the stairwell, and
19 we knocked on one apartment that I thought would have a clear line of
20 sight to the incident site. We were let in, and from there I took the
22 Q. What -- do you remember what floor approximately it was?
23 A. I think it was approximately the fourth floor.
24 Q. Sorry, fourth floor?
25 A. Fourth floor.
1 Q. Were there from that vantage point any obstructions to your view
2 of the tram location?
3 A. Well, there were some branches that partially blocked the view of
4 the incident site.
5 Q. And did that affect your findings?
6 A. No, because the time of year is March 1995. The trees would have
7 been much smaller by then, and they would be without leaves as it was
9 Q. Did you make any effort to determine how long a tram would have
10 been in view to a sniper situated in the Matalka building as it passed
11 through that intersection you've circled?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. And what were your conclusions?
14 A. The time that it would be exposed from front to end would be
15 about eight seconds.
16 Q. And how did you go about making that determination?
17 A. From the location -- from the apartment in the building with a
18 stop-watch. I just used -- as soon as I saw -- I pushed my stop-watch as
19 soon as I saw the front end of the tram and then stopped the stop-watch
20 again when the tram disappeared from my view.
21 Q. From the apartment you visited, were you able to hear the trams
22 at all?
23 A. No, not at the time.
24 Q. Would any of the weapons that you identified in appendix A have
25 been capable of making a shot at that distance?
1 A. More than one.
2 Q. Did you draw any conclusions about what weapon may have been used
3 in this incident?
4 A. Yes, I did. The weapon that I think was used was probably a
5 machine-gun, so not a specific sniper rifle because there were several
6 people injured, and it would be possible for a shooter to fire several
7 shots, but it would be much easier to fire a servo with machine-gun.
8 Q. When you were looking from that building in the direction of the
9 intersection in question, could you see the intersection with your naked
10 eye, or did you require magnification?
11 A. You can see the intersection with the naked eye, but you would
12 need magnification to make out details.
13 Q. Did you have equipment with you that would allow you to make out
15 A. Yes, I did. Yes, I had.
16 Q. What was the equipment you had?
17 A. I had binoculars, a laser range-finder, and a photo camera with a
18 telegraphic -- a tele-lens.
19 Q. What was the most powerful magnifying tool you had with you that
21 A. The binoculars.
22 Q. Did you use them at all to look at the trams as they passed?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. And with the binoculars, were you able to actually identify or
25 distinguish between persons inside the tram?
1 A. No, not at all.
2 Q. And how would the magnifying capabilities of your binoculars
3 compare to the magnifying capabilities on the weapons you listed in
4 appendix A?
5 A. The magnification of the binoculars I used are six times, and
6 from my information the usual magnification of weapons used in the
7 conflict was four times, both in machine-guns as in sniper rifles, so it
8 would be a lower magnification.
9 Q. So using your more powerful magnification, could you make out any
10 characteristics of the people inside the tram?
11 A. No.
12 Q. You'd indicated that one possibility of fire that had been
13 suggested to you was the Jewish cemetery. Were you able to reach any
14 conclusion as to whether that was a possibility?
15 A. Well, I did not consider this a source of fire since it's blocked
16 from view from the incident site by several higher buildings, so there's
17 no way you can from the incident -- the exact incident site to take a
18 look at the Jewish cemetery or the other way around.
19 Q. You went to the Jewish cemetery, I take it, then?
20 A. I went later on for another incident to the Jewish cemetery and
21 looked that way, but it was not possible to get a view.
22 Q. Going back to this incident when you were in the building, the
23 Matalka building, would you have had any difficulty making the shot from
24 that building to the tram location?
25 A. If it was just to hit the tram, it would be not very -- it would
1 not be difficult.
2 Q. And when you were in Bosnia
3 of any trams being used for military purposes?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Just looking at the photographs that you've included in your
6 report, so going back to 65 ter 06907 and looking at page 32 in the
7 English version, page 36 in the B/C/S version.
8 The B/C/S version hasn't come up yet, but the photograph is the
9 same in both versions. So could you tell me what you're illustrating.
10 First, what is the area in the photograph on this page?
11 A. It is -- it is a photo of -- an aerial photograph or satellite
12 photograph I got from Google Earth which shows both the incident site and
13 the possible shooter location.
14 Q. And why is it -- you've got a marking there, "field of fire."
15 Why is it field of fire and not just a pin-point location?
16 A. Because there were several apartments where the shooter might
17 have been, so I didn't want to state it was this must have been the
18 location. There are several options, and the field of fire is -- if the
19 shooter would have been on the most right-hand -- the most eastern side
20 of the building, he would have more sight -- a better line of sight to
21 the west on the incident site; and likewise, on the western side of the
22 building, he would be able to look more to the right of the incident
24 MS. BOLTON: Okay. Move on to incident B-8, and that is
25 discussed at page 25 of the English version of your -- of the e-court
1 version of your report and 26 of the B/C/S version, and this is the
2 incident of November 23rd, 1994.
3 Q. Again, you set out -- I'm just waiting for the B/C/S version.
4 MS. BOLTON: Sorry, is that page 26 of the B/C/S version in
5 e-court, Madam Registrar? Okay. Could you go back one page on the B/C/S
6 version, please. Could you go forward two pages, please, in the B/C/S
7 version. I think that's corresponding.
8 Q. Looking at or dealing with this incident, again, you have set out
9 a situation and a GPS
10 A. It was provided to me by the investigator.
11 Q. And in terms of the GPS
12 compared to the last incident that we discussed, how did they compare?
13 A. I have to check, but I think they are the same, more or less the
14 same. Yes, they are the same.
15 Q. And so your understanding in terms of where the tram was located
16 during this incident, how does it compare with the incident we've just
18 A. It would be on the same situation.
19 Q. And did you make a separate visit to the site with respect to
20 this incident, or was it just the one visit that you've already
22 A. I think there were separate visits, well, during the same day,
23 but I only -- but the photographs that I used from the building of the
24 possible -- the possible shooting location, those pictures I used in
25 several incidents because it was -- concerned the same incident site.
1 Q. Okay. So you visited this incident site that day, and did your
2 methodology differ in any way when you made the second visit that day?
3 A. Same thing.
4 Q. And what were your conclusions in this case with respect to the
5 likely source of fire?
6 A. The same location again with the Matalka building south of the
7 river just down the street to the south.
8 Q. And your findings or opinion with respect to the likely kind of
9 weapon that was used?
10 A. The same weapon.
11 Q. Are there any advantages for a sniper to using the same location
12 to shoot from over and over again?
13 A. It's not always smart to use the same location, but if you have a
14 dominating position or a very defendable one, such as on another side of
15 the river, and you fortify your position with sandbags or concrete, it
16 can be used several times over a longer extended period.
17 Q. You said it's not always smart, so there are some disadvantages.
18 Are there any advantages?
19 A. The advantage is you can dominate that terrain feature. You can
20 -- everybody will be afraid to use the street.
21 Q. When you are talking about dominating terrain, I don't quite know
22 what you mean.
23 A. You decide who moves in the terrain because if you -- if they
24 move and they are fired upon, you know, they will get wounded or possibly
25 get killed, so in the -- in the military setting, it would be if you
1 occupy a hill and you've got a view all around from where you can either
2 fire your own weapons or direct artillery on positions, you are in
3 command of the terrain. There's -- nobody can do anything without you
4 letting them.
5 MS. BOLTON: Okay. The last incident I want to discuss with you
6 is scheduled incident B-9, and if we could look at page 44 in the English
7 version of your report, page 49 of the B/C/S version.
8 Q. This is an incident that occurred at - and I'm going to butcher
9 the pronunciation; I apologise to the B/C/S speakers - Spicaste Stijena.
10 What is that location's name in English?
11 A. From what I understood, it's Sharpstone.
12 Q. And just generally, what area of Sarajevo is Sharpstone in?
13 A. It's -- on the map, it would be central Sarajevo, to the north,
14 and so up into the hills.
15 Q. And how densely populated an area is it?
16 A. It's some smaller village-like neighbourhoods with wooded areas.
17 MS. BOLTON: Madam Registrar, could you bring up 65 ter 04615.
18 It will be a series of eight photos, and if you could go to the eighth
20 Q. Do you recognise the area in that photo?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. What is that area?
23 A. This is the -- the ridge-line that is visible, that is apparently
24 locally known as the Spicaste Stijena, so Sharpstone.
25 Q. And based on the information you were provided with in respect of
1 this incident, were there any troops occupying the ridge-line?
2 A. Well, at the time of the visit, there still were former locations
3 visible, so trenches or dug-out positions still remains on the hill.
4 Q. And who did you understand occupied those positions during the
6 A. I was told it was occupied by VRS.
7 Q. Okay.
8 MS. BOLTON: If I could have this photograph marked as an
9 exhibit, please, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: So marked. May it please be given an exhibit
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P492.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
14 MS. BOLTON: If we could return, please, Madam Registrar, to page
15 44 of the English version of the report, page 49 of the B/C/S version.
16 Q. Did you visit the incident location in this case?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. And could you tell us again what month and year that was that you
20 A. It was also in November 2006.
21 Q. And again, what were the weather conditions like the day you
22 visited this site?
23 A. Still foggy, with probably 5, 600 metres maximum sight.
24 Q. The information you've set out under "situation" in relation to
25 this incident includes the information about the likely -- or what the
1 victim thought was the likely source of fire. Did you find any evidence
2 to corroborate or contradict her belief as to the origin of the shots?
3 A. Well, when I visited the incident site, I did see information
4 that the shot that wounded her must have come from that direction.
5 Q. What was it that you saw?
6 A. Bullet -- of a bullet in a tree, or the damage caused by the
8 Q. And where would that bullet, in your opinion, have to originated
10 A. It would have to come from the Sharpstone position, from the
12 Q. Did you go up into the hills, up into the ridge-line yourself?
13 A. I did at the time, not to the exact ridge-line. I did -- from
14 position, I did see positions. Recently, I went back again and did visit
15 the ridge-line, and from there, there is a very good insight to the
16 village below and also to the incident site.
17 Q. Just to go over that a little more slowly, when you went back in
18 November 2006, could you see from the ridge-line in those foggy
19 conditions down to the incident site?
20 A. No.
21 Q. And when you went back two weeks ago to the incident site, could
22 you see -- went back to the ridge-line two weeks ago, could you see the
23 incident site?
24 A. Yes, clearly.
25 Q. Any obstructions to your view?
1 A. None.
2 Q. What distance are we talking about in this case?
3 A. The distance because -- the distance that I'd written down in
4 this report is 900 to a little over a kilometre, which was an estimated
5 guess from the map because the conditions were too foggy. But from a
6 location that I visited two weeks ago, which could not have been more
7 than 100 metres away from the incident -- from this incident site, it was
8 1100 metres.
9 Q. And based on appendix A, was the VRS in possession of weapons
10 that were capable of making -- or covering that distance?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And in that instance, would you have required magnification to
13 see from the shooting site to the incident site, or could you see it with
14 the naked eye?
15 A. Well, if somebody would be in position for a long time, he would
16 be able to see movement with the naked eye, but for targeting he would
17 probably have to have magnification.
18 Q. And with magnification, was there any difficulty?
19 A. No. You can see the target.
20 Q. And what was your opinion as to what the likely weapon was in
21 this case?
22 A. Again, it would have been a machine-gun, probably -- possibly
23 fitted with -- on a tripod for better accuracy, and with the aid of an
24 optical sight.
25 Q. Did you make any effort in this instant to ascertain whether
1 there had been Bosnian army or Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina positions in
2 the area?
3 A. Apparently there were positions, but they were at the bottom of
4 the ridge, and from there you don't have a direct line of sight to the
5 incident site.
6 Q. Did you visit those locations?
7 A. I viewed them from the incident site and while travelling to the
8 ridge-line, so I didn't visit the exact locations myself.
9 Q. In your opinion, though, could the fire have originated from the
10 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina positions?
11 A. There's always a possibility, but it would be very, very
13 MS. BOLTON: Brief indulgence, Your Honour.
14 I ask at this juncture if the witness's report could be marked.
15 I'm not going to ask anything at this juncture, Your Honour. I
16 have no further questions for the witness. Thank you.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I understand you to be saying that that report
18 is not being tendered?
19 MS. BOLTON: No. The report is going to be tendered, but my
20 colleague advised me that we usually make that request after
21 re-examination and not at the end of examination-in-chief.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much for finishing your
23 questions, but just one little question for my own clarification.
24 You referred to using a stop-watch to determine the time it takes
25 a tram to go across when you described incident B-10. Do the trams
1 travel at a constant speed at that point?
2 THE WITNESS: No, they don't because actually at that location
3 they have to slow down because there's a switch on the tracks, so they
4 slow down more than -- they travel slower than the usual speed they
5 travel at. But it would have to be around that speed, so 7, 8, 9
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: So they would generally have to slow down to that
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe so.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Mr. Lukic.
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Van Der Weijden. My name is
13 Novak Lukic, and I'm one of the Defence counsel for Mr. Perisic. So I'm
14 going to be asking you some questions now with respect to your expert
16 You confirmed today, and you also say this in your report, that
17 you were in Bosnia and Herzegovina on two occasions. The first time was
18 while the conflict was still ongoing when you were a member of UNPROFOR.
19 Can we know where you were, where you were stationed? What I was
20 specifically interested in is whether you were in Sarajevo at all during
21 that first visit of yours.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Slow down, Mr. Lukic.
23 THE WITNESS: I was stationed in Simin Han, east of Tuzla
24 did visit Sarajevo
25 passing through to the enclave of Srebrenica.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Did you visit Sarajevo
3 member of IFOR?
4 A. No, I didn't.
5 Q. As far as I noticed reading your CV, you have attended quite a
6 few specialist courses in the area of sniping, but I wasn't able to see -
7 and please confirm this - whether you have completed the military academy
8 or some military school in actual fact. Have you?
9 A. I have completed both military school and the academy, but not
10 the full course but the course they have for contract soldiers, so
11 shorter term, but I have completed them.
12 Q. During your career, did you complete any courses or, within the
13 frameworks of the existing courses, did you have any knowledge linked to
14 criminology, crime investigation, crime analysis of the crime scenes in
15 incidents of this type and things like that?
16 A. No, I haven't.
17 Q. I also noticed from your CV, towards the end of your CV is where
18 you mentioned your hobbies, and I think this was mentioned in the
19 Milosevic testimony, I understood it that you were interested in
20 literature, if I can put it that way, literature linked to the war in the
21 former Yugoslavia
22 A. I don't think I have mentioned specifically literature linked to
23 the war in Yugoslavia
24 military history, which -- with some books that include parts about
25 former Yugoslavia
1 Q. And in the period that you were in Bosnia for, were you
2 interested in following the way the media depicted events in Bosnia
3 A. In 1995, which was my first time, we didn't receive that much
5 Q. I'm asking you that because in your report I see that you mention
6 terms like "sniper alleys," then Grbavica, an infamous place where sniper
7 positions were to be found. So where did you get these adjectives and
8 titles in your reports to give to these locations?
9 A. "Sniper alley" is a term that I got from the media because it was
10 mentioned at the time, although I don't recall the exact dates that is it
11 was mentioned. But it was the just -- I think a general term used for a
12 street in Sarajevo
13 witnesses mentioned it, that's why I describe it as an infamous place for
14 snipers; and when I did visit Sarajevo
15 field, close to the Butmir base, and there was evidence of anti-sniping
16 barricades, so blankets, cardboard to obscure movement.
17 Q. I'm now going to ask you a few questions linked to the source,
18 the Prosecutor -- the source of the material that you used, and this is
19 something the Prosecutor asked you, linked to the assignment you were
20 given by the Prosecution, by the OTP, so the source of your materials,
21 and you mentioned this in your report as well. As far as I was able to
22 understand, you received video recordings from the site on which
23 witnesses indicated certain locations. Do you remember seeing things
24 like that with the investigators of the OTP?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Today, I heard you answer that you received a summary from the
2 Prosecutor of witness statements, their summaries, not the specific
3 statements or the transcripts of their testimony, but summaries. Is that
5 A. Summary, I don't know if it's a witness statement, but it's a
6 brief description of the incident. I don't know if it's written by the
7 Prosecutor, by an investigator. I wouldn't know. It's just a brief
8 general description of the incident.
9 Q. And do you remember whether the OTP provided you with, before you
10 wrote your report, maps and sketches which witnesses took when they
11 indicated the locations where they were hit?
12 A. No, I haven't received any maps with marks.
13 Q. When you were on the spot, did you personally have any contacts
14 with any of the witnesses or victims, anybody who would describe the
15 event to you personally?
16 A. I would have to do a quick check. No, I haven't had contact with
17 the witnesses.
18 Q. I see. So the information that you were given linked to a
19 locality and to the fact that an incident had occurred is one provided
20 you by the Prosecutor or investigator with a description of what he knew
21 the witness to have said; right?
22 A. Well, like I said, I got a description. I don't know if it's
23 written by the Prosecutor or the investigator. It's just a description.
24 Q. Do you remember - and I think I happened to have seen that in one
25 of your footnotes; we might come across it when we take the incidents one
1 by one - but do you remember having in your hands some crime reports and
2 onsite material compiled by the Bosnian police about the incidents?
3 A. Not unless it was mentioned in the descriptions.
4 Q. I think we'll be able to see in due course that you refer to
5 something like that in one of your footnotes, but we'll come to that in
6 due course.
7 I heard today, and I think you confirmed this previously, as
8 well, that you didn't take into account the medical reports, and you
9 state your reasons why not, why you didn't think they would be useful or
10 would be useful, but would you agree with me when I say this: That a
11 medical report about certain wounds and injuries, if it contains a
12 precise description of entry and exit wound, can fairly clearly determine
13 the angle at which the body -- the bullet entered the body?
14 A. Combined with the exact location and the direction the victim was
15 facing at the time, it would, yes.
16 Q. So a medical report of that kind would mean that you could
17 establish, if you knew the position of the victim, that you would be able
18 to establish the direction from which the bullet came; right?
19 A. Yes. That would be possible.
20 Q. And what is very important, the angle at which the bullet entered
21 the body?
22 A. Yes, I understand.
23 Q. Did you ask the OTP to provide you with those crime reports? Did
24 you ask them whether they had possession of any crime reports?
25 A. I can't remember, but I don't -- I haven't received, and I
1 haven't worked with the crime reports, and as you have stated, I'm not a
2 -- I don't have a specific medical background, so it would be of not much
3 use for me personally.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps this would be a good time for
5 the break, Your Honour, because I've finished with one area.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We'll take a break and come
7 back at 4.00. Court adjourned.
8 --- Recess taken at 3.30 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 3.59 p.m.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Van Der Weijden, I'm now going to ask you a
13 few questions related to the methodology of your work. We've already
14 heard something about that during the examination-in-chief. You
15 explained to us what methods you applied in drawing your conclusions.
16 You toured all the locations with respect to the individual
17 incidents that you were assigned to analyse, so you visited the site
18 where you were shown that the incident had taken place and others where
19 you assumed the shooting came from; right?
20 A. Yes, apart from the places that I assumed the shooting had come
21 from but which were inaccessible.
22 Q. Now, on the spot with the Prosecution or, rather, the Prosecution
23 took you to see the site where they told you that the victim had been
24 hit; right?
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. So the site at which the victim was hit, you went to see what,
2 tactically speaking, was the most suitable place for a sniper to have
3 targeted that particular spot; right?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. And you were mostly able to pin-point an area where a sniper
6 could have been positioned. You could never determine the exact spot, of
7 course, so the general area; right?
8 A. Depending on the incident, the size of the area would be smaller
9 or larger, but the exact pin-point location would be very difficult to
11 Q. For example, when we saw the map a moment ago where you indicated
12 the tunnel through the streets where the tram was hit, as far as I was
13 able to see, the area was narrow where the sniper could have been if the
14 bullet travelled in a straight line; right?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Did the Prosecution or, rather, the person whom you worked with
17 and who provided you information for your work, did you ask them to
18 provide you information and data about where the BH Army positions were
19 in respect of that location where the incident had taken place?
20 A. No. I was just given general information, well, apart from the
21 Sharpstone which was -- we found out that's where our VRS locations were,
22 but in general, I didn't know exactly which buildings were occupied. The
23 thing is, of course, if there's a river, that's an obvious frontline so
24 it would easily be to conclude that south, the parties would be on
25 different sides of the river.
1 Q. A moment ago when you were answering a question from the
2 Prosecutor linked to a particular incident, you said that you excluded
3 the possibility of the fact that the hit had come from the direction of
4 the Jewish cemetery. I think it was incident number 11 when the tram was
5 hit because there were buildings in between which prevented the bullet
6 hitting the tram from that direction.
7 Now, did you ask the Prosecution who had control of the buildings
8 in between, and perhaps could they have been a position from which the
9 tram was targeted?
10 A. I did not ask because I just looked at the alleged location and
11 then -- but the Jewish cemetery was out of the question for me, but the
12 buildings in between, there might be some possibilities for a shooting
13 location, but it would be -- there would be better locations nearby
14 because the buildings were at really close range, so there would be
15 better positions closer to the tram.
16 Q. Do you know that during the war on the Sarajevo battle-front,
17 there were very few changes in the frontlines; the frontlines throughout
18 the war were static in actual fact, for the most part?
19 A. I have read something about it, but I wouldn't know the exact
20 locations of the frontlines.
21 Q. I'd now like to ask you a few questions linked to optic sights
22 because you spoke about the weapons that were used by the Army of
23 Republika Srpska. First of all, let me start off by asking you this:
24 Were you provided information, or did you know that the BH Army also had
25 snipers and used snipers?
1 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
2 Q. I came by a piece of information to this effect, that on the
3 rifles used by the Army of Republika Srpska or, rather, the JNA
4 previously, that on the snipers the M-70 was used. Do you know this --
5 are you familiar with that model of optic sights, the M-70?
6 A. No, I'm not.
7 Q. Well, let me tell you that that particular optic sight magnifies
8 everything four times. It is magnified by four.
9 A. Then probably --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, before you answer. Yes, Madam Bolton.
11 MS. BOLTON: The witness indicated that he was not familiar with
12 the site, so I don't think that further examination by my friend is
13 appropriate. He has no knowledge of the subject matter.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think the witness in his report --
16 I think that Mr. Van Der Weijden said in his report that sights were used
17 which magnify four times, so I wanted to ask him whether he stands by
18 that assertion of his that sniper sights of the kind used by the Army of
19 the Republika Srpska or the JNA previously had a magnification of four.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: But would he be able to answer that question or
21 would he -- that's not a point he made; therefore, you can't ask him to
22 stand by that. You can ask him to stand by hisassertion that generally,
23 the arms that were used were magnifying four times fold, but he can't
24 specifically say what type of -- how many times a specific arm in the
25 hands of the VRS could multiply by.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, I won't insist on that. I just
2 asked him about the model. He gave us his answer. I'm just going to ask
3 him whether he knows about the M-80 sights which to my knowledge was used
4 on automatic weapons of the Army of Republika Srpska and previously the
6 Q. And which gives a magnification times three.
7 A. I would like to clarify. I know the sites from picture, and I
8 know that the M-70 will probably be the Yugoslavian copy of the PS 01
9 scope which is used on the SVD sniper rifle of the Soviet union, so those
10 are probably very similar scopes which both use 4-times magnification,
11 whereas the M-80 sight that you indicate for the use on the machine-guns,
12 a 3-times magnification, is a copy of another Soviet model or a similar
13 model. So I am aware that -- even though I don't know the name M-70, I
14 am aware of the type of scope that was used.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you know anything about the M-80?
16 THE WITNESS: The M-80, I don't know the name, but I know the
17 type of sight.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Regardless of the model, if we have an optical sight times four,
20 do you -- would you agree with me when I say that a target which is over
21 600 metres -- at a distance of over 600 metres cannot be seen using those
22 sights in view of the line in the sniper which is wider than a human
23 face, the dividing line in the sights?
24 A. If the radical of the M-70 scope or M-80 scope are similar to the
25 Soviet models or the Russian models, then, indeed, the needle which is
1 used to target -- to put on the target is wider at larger distances like
2 it would be for iron sights, but it doesn't mean that the bullet cannot
3 get there. It only limits the effect of the means for the shooter to aim
4 his rifle.
5 Q. At all events, if this line exists, it is an impediment to see
6 the target at a distance greater than 600 metres; right?
7 A. Yes, it would be.
8 Q. And if the magnification is in the ratio of 1:3, then at a
9 distance of over 500 metres the same problem will occur?
10 A. It might, but I would like to explain something. In western
11 sniper courses and from the countries I know, the sniper always works
12 with his rifle. If he works alone, he also has a pair of binoculars
13 because you -- during my sniper course, you have a rifle with a 6-time
14 magnification, you have a pair of binoculars with 6-times magnification,
15 which has a clearer view, but you also have a spotting scope of 20-times
16 magnification. So if I were to work alone, I had to first use the
17 spotting scope, first use my binoculars to see moving things, things that
18 would stand out in my field of view; then if I see things that are moving
19 or things that stand out, I turn to my 20-times magnification to identify
20 that object, and if that were to be a target, then I put -- I use the
21 reference that I had from my 20-times magnification, to take my rifle
22 again to -- and use it to aim, whereas a lot of snipers, or especially in
23 fixed positions, there could also be a spotter next to the sniper who
24 directs -- who has bigger magnification than the rifle scope who directs
25 the shooter onto the target. So that's -- the three times or four times
1 doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to hit the target.
2 Q. But would you agree with me, when the distance is greater than
3 1.000 metres, a sniper can have -- can be of little assistance in
4 identifying the target?
5 A. I've written in my report that there were several indicators.
6 Even if you don't -- if you're not able to see the colour of the clothing
7 but you can also see from activity of the object the way people move,
8 people that are fighting move differently than people who are not
9 fighting. If I'm carrying a bucket of water to my house, it looks
10 different than when I'm trying to set up a position or carrying supplies.
11 Q. Yes, I read that in the report. With an optic sight, which is
12 times four, through that sight at a distance of 1.000 metres, can you see
13 what the target is doing, any activity, because as far as I understand
14 it, you can just see a dot or a point. That's what I'm asking you. Can
15 you actually discern anything at that distance?
16 A. It would be possible. It would - [microphone not activated] -
17 but it would be possible.
18 Q. Thank you. Now, I would like to ask you about the specific
19 incidents, and I agree you may refer to your report, and I hope that the
20 Prosecution is not adverse to that. I will use the page, and I will
21 quote the pages in hard copy, and I hope that Madam Registrar can help me
22 identify it in e-court because that's the way that I've prepared by
24 First of all for clarification purposes, on page 7 of your
25 report, you speak of bullets hitting a target before the victim can
1 actually hear the sound; is that correct?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. And you also said that people who are not used to firings can be
4 easily confused about the direction from which the fire came and the time
5 elapsed between the bullet actually hit the target?
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. You are also quite explicit about saying that very frequently
8 panic would set in among the people who were onsite when somebody gets
9 hit; correct?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. And in spite of these positions that you mentioned here, the main
12 source of your information as to the direction from which the bullet came
13 was based on witness statements; correct?
14 A. Well, it's only -- from what I got from the witness's statements,
15 it's only the alleged shooting position, but I -- like, it's in the
16 report. Sometimes I contradict the witness statements because I don't
17 believe that the bullet might have originated from there. So it's
18 largely from my own conclusions that I determine the point of origin.
19 Q. Well, I have a problem with this as I interpreted your report.
20 We have an instance, for instance, where two eye-witnesses actually have
21 contradictory statements as to where the bullet came from, and then,
22 based on the statement of one of those eye-witnesses, you would go to a
23 location where allegedly the bullet had come from, but you wouldn't go to
24 the location where the other witness stated that the bullet came from
25 there; correct?
1 For instance, specifically speaking of the Jewish cemetery, a
2 representative of the OTP said that one witness stated that the bullet
3 had come from the Jewish cemetery, but you said that that was impossible
4 because there were some buildings in between; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, I said it would be -- for that incident, it was impossible
6 because the buildings were in between.
7 Q. But you did not have occasion to see the crime report, the crime
8 investigation, onsite investigation report, which would also establish or
9 state where the bullet would have come from, and you did not rely on
10 those as material facts or evidence that could help you form your
11 conclusions; is that correct?
12 A. I want to get back to a line I made earlier about the information
13 that I received from the Prosecutor because I was asked yesterday during
14 the proofing what information I had received and -- but because a lot of
15 my material was in storage, I was not able to get to all my -- because
16 it's on a CD-ROM, unfortunately, the CD-ROM in my laptop is -- the driver
17 is broken, so I wasn't able to see all the information that I'd received.
18 So there possibly are some witness reports that I've read, but still I
19 didn't rely on the -- on the witness statements that much because I just
20 wanted from my point of view what would be possible for a shooter to
21 deliver a bullet on the incident side.
22 Q. What I'm saying is that in your analysis, you relied specifically
23 on what the Prosecutor told you about what a witness had told them. For
24 instance, you said the infamous location of Grbavica. This information
25 came from the Prosecution; correct?
1 A. No. That is my own conclusion because Grbavica is featured in
2 several descriptions of the incidents. So it was obviously, for the
3 witnesses, a notorious location.
4 Q. All right. Can we now for a moment discuss the incident that you
5 marked as incident 18. In the English version, that's on page 13; and in
6 our instance in the indictment, it is P-12. Incident P-12, the wounding
7 of Semsa Covrk. As a witness and a victim, she says that she had been
8 hit from the direction of the airport. If you'd like to refresh your
9 memory and take a look at the description of the incident.
10 Do you remember that you handled this and processed this
12 A. Yes, I remember.
13 Q. And the victim says that the bullet came from the airport, and
14 you provided your own arguments as to why you excluded the possibility of
15 the bullet having come from the airport, and then you assessed that the
16 bullet had come from a house that you marked, and you described the
17 swathe of land from which -- an area from which the bullet would have
19 A. Yes. Like I --
20 Q. My question is, were you shown by a representative the OTP maps
21 where -- from which you could see who was actually holding this location
22 at the time? Do you recall that?
23 A. The only location -- the only information about positions were
24 that I knew the Sarajevo
25 from the brief description that she was facing VRS frontline positions at
1 the Sarajevo
3 Q. In any case, you do not know who controlled those positions that
4 you said were the possible location where the bullet had come from;
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. The reason I'm asking this is that I received the proofing notes
8 from the Prosecutor, and based on them I realised that you did not
9 actually read the indictment in the case of Dragomir Milosevic, and I'm
10 pleased because this will provide for your impartiality and judgement.
11 That is why I ask this question.
12 MS. BOLTON: Sorry, just -- I think my friend misspoke. The
13 proofing note doesn't indicate he didn't read the indictment in the
14 Milosevic matter. It indicated that he didn't read the judgement
15 rendered by the court in the Milosevic matter. Just so it's clear.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] That is what I said. I said
18 judgement, and it's probably an interpretation error. I did refer to
19 judgement. I apologise because it wouldn't be logical if it were an
20 indictment, so I did use the word "judgement."
21 Q. Now, let us discuss the next incident, incident number 8 in your
22 report. That's on page 24 of the English version. In B/C/S, that's 26.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is the incident
24 marked in schedule B as incident number 8 in the indictment.
25 Q. I think we've already touched upon this incident today. You
1 determined as the site where the tram was hit an area between the museum
2 and the university; is that correct? That is the same site that is
3 mentioned in incident B-11 that you've shown us here today.
4 A. That is correct. There were two incidents at the same site.
5 Q. Could we please see Exhibit P491 that you've marked today. For
6 both of these incidents, you drew as the site the area between the museum
7 and the faculty - is that correct - claiming that on both these
8 incidents, the tram had been hit through the tunnel from the Matalka
9 building; correct?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. I assume that the site where the tram was shown to have been hit,
12 that you received the information as to the tram site from the
13 Prosecution based on witness statements; correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. The problem that I have with this is that all the witnesses
16 describing this incident mention that the tram had been hit near the
17 barracks, and this is not only mentioned by --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Bolton.
19 MS. BOLTON: I disagree with that characterization of my friend.
20 I don't know if this is an issue that should be discussed in the presence
21 of the witness or what the practice here is, but I certainly don't agree
22 that all of the witnesses indicate a different location in relation to
23 incident B-8.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, do you want to ...
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my assertion is that
1 this incident, as far as the witnesses are concerned, is described as the
2 tram having been hit close to the Marshal Tito barracks.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt you. Your learned friend wants to
4 suggest that maybe you discuss this in the absence of the witness. Are
5 you able to indicate your attitude to that? I don't know what it is that
6 is going to be discussed that requires the witness to be absent. You
7 probably feel each other, know more or less which way you are going.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I really do not see. I have no idea
9 why there is any need for this witness to be absent. I'm not going to
10 discuss here the witness statements. I just want to discuss the possible
11 sites of the incident. I don't think it is necessary for the witness to
12 leave the courtroom unless the Prosecutor is insisting or maybe wants to
13 touch upon some other topic.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Bolton.
15 MS. BOLTON: My only concern, of course, is that the witness is
16 now going to be privy to information that he hasn't necessarily been
17 privy to before.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you insist on him being absent?
19 MS. BOLTON: I think that to preserve his potential evidence if
20 he were ever asked about these incidents again in the future that he
21 should be excused.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. These are some of the
23 vicissitudes of trial that interrupt you in the middle of your testimony.
24 I'm sorry to have to do this to you. Will you please excuse us for a
25 short while. Don't go far. You will be called fairly soon. Thank you
1 very much.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does it matter if the witness's mike stays on?
4 Doesn't matter. Okay. Who is starting?
5 MS. BOLTON: I'll just indicate to the Court my concern. Thank
6 you, Mr. Saxon. My friend has suggested to the witness that all of the
7 witnesses agree that this incident took place in proximity to the Tito
8 barracks. We've heard from one witness in relation to this incident so
9 far. We have not yet heard from the other two witnesses who are
10 scheduled to testify in relation to this matter. My respectful
11 submission, it would not be a fair characterization of the two witnesses
12 who have not yet testified to say that they are indicating a different
13 location in proximity to the Tito barracks. Their anticipated evidence
14 based on my review of their evidence is that in fact they will identify
15 the same location that this witness has identified as the location for
16 the tram when they indicate where they believe they were at the time it
17 was hit.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me get clarity here. I understood Mr. Lukic -
19 and Mr. Lukic, you can correct me if I'm wrong - to be talking about the
20 witnesses on the basis of whose statements this witness worked, not any
21 other witnesses that are going to be called by the Prosecution
22 necessarily, but those witnesses that -- that provided information that
23 he used.
24 MS. BOLTON: Those are the same witnesses, Your Honour. So
25 that's the difficulty, is that on the basis of the witness statements
1 that we would hear about eventually viva voce, it's a
2 mischaracterization, in my respectful submission, to say that they
3 indicate a different location. To say that they all indicate it happened
4 at the Tito barracks is not correct in my view.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I will try to simplify this
7 completely, and I will rephrase my questions. But I think that based on
8 the instructions that you issued, we can -- we can put a question to a
9 witness regarding witness statements of witnesses that are yet to come
10 and testify here. But to make this simpler, if you recall, there was a
11 witness speaking about the shooting through the tunnel towards the
12 direction of target "T," that he marked as "T," and the Prosecutor in his
13 indictment with incident B-8, describing incident B-8, claims that the
14 witness had been hit from the direction through this tunnel, and all I
15 want to ask is whether -- I want to put it to this witness and ask
16 whether it's possible to hit a target through the tunnel if the tram was
17 in the vicinity of the barracks. That's all that I was aiming at.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: That question is completely different from saying
19 all witnesses say A, B, C, number 1. Number 2, on the point of
20 confronting a witness with the witness statement of witnesses yet to be
21 called, yes, I accept that that is the guide-line, but there is some
22 small procedure that you've got to follow before that, i.e., disclose to
23 the Prosecution or the opposite member and the Bench who those witnesses
24 are without revealing that to the witness on the stand. But if you are
25 going -- if you just want to ask the question that you put now -- is it
1 possible to shoot through the tunnel? What was the question?
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Is it possible by shooting
3 through the tunnel, that the witness indicated here, to hit a tram that
4 was in the vicinity of the barracks? That's the only question I had.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think that question would be perfectly
6 legitimate without characterizing the statements of other witnesses.
7 Thank you very much. If that is the case, shall we then call the
9 MS. BOLTON: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness then come back.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for the indulgence.
13 THE WITNESS: No problem, Your Honour.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Van Der Weijden, I will have this question for you: From the
16 location that you indicated here was the Matalka building, it is possible
17 through the tunnel that you marked to hit the tram if the tram was
18 outside the Marshal Tito barracks at that moment?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Thank you. While we still have this map before us, let me ask
21 you another thing. You marked with a "G" this rectangle here that you
22 said was Grbavica. Do you know who controlled the area between the "G"
23 area and the site where the tram was hit as seen in this picture? Which
24 forces controlled this area during the incident, at the time of the
1 A. So between the rectangle and the tram tracks? Well, I wasn't
2 told, but I assume it's the ABiH.
3 Q. If I understood you correctly, your understanding was that the
4 Miljacka River
5 forces, the BH Army and the VRS; correct?
6 A. That is correct, and that's why I assumed that north of the river
7 is occupied by the ABiH.
8 Q. Your conclusion about this incident is that it was caused by
9 automatic weapon fire. Could you tell us how you came to this
11 A. The reason why I came to this conclusion, there is not mentioning
12 of automatic fire by the witnesses, but for the incident it's easier for
13 the machine-gun to be able to hit the tram than with a regular rifle
14 because it is a moving target even though the line of sight -- the line
15 of fire would be stationary.
16 Q. Yes, that's what I read in your report. But if I were to tell
17 you that the onsite investigation, the criminal investigation report
18 indicates that only one bullet actually hit the tram, would that affect
19 your conclusion in respect of the weapons used?
20 A. No.
21 Q. So it is your view that the tram could have been hit by several
22 bullets that cannot be detected on the tram itself?
23 A. Well, the problem with a machine-gun, a machine-gun isn't made to
24 have all the bullets exactly at the same location if you fire the
25 machine-gun. So if you fire a machine-gun, it's meant to give a spread
1 of bullets to hit multiple targets so even though there's only one hit on
2 the tram, there might be several hits above the tram going in buildings
3 beyond the tram. It doesn't mean -- if there's only one hit, it doesn't
4 mean it's semi-auto fire, semi-automatic fire.
5 Q. If the tram is in motion and if there is a trace that a bullet
6 had hit the tram and this is material evidence, how can you then -- based
7 on what can you conclude that the tram was hit by automatic weapons fire?
8 Was this conclusion that you drew based on witness statements or what?
9 That's what I'm asking you.
10 A. It was based on my conclusion that I thought it would be the most
11 suitable weapon in this incident.
12 Q. So this is based on your experience as a man who knows what type
13 of weapon is best suited for a certain location. Your conclusion was
14 that it's probable that an automatic weapon was used, or a machine-gun;
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Now I will ask but incident number 13 in your report. That's on
18 page 27 of your report; B/C/S, that's on page 30.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And, Your Honour, this is incident
20 B-10, and if I am correct, the OTP actually decided to exclude this
21 incident. I think my colleague mentioned that they are not going to
22 refer to this incident, and if I'm correct, then I will not refer to it
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think you are correct.
25 MS. BOLTON: Yes. This is the incident of 27 February 1995?
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In conclusion, if I may, if this
3 expert report is to be adopted as evidence, this item, this incident will
4 not be part of it; correct?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are very right.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I will then move on to incident
7 number 14 in your report. Your Honour, that's on page 30 of the English
8 version, the hard copy of your report, and in the annex, Your Honour, in
9 the schedule to the indictment, it's B-11.
10 Q. Just briefly, because we've already discussed this incident and
11 you mentioned that you had analysed that document, so, Mr. Van Der
12 Weijden, in footnote 5 in the B/C/S version, you mention ballistic
13 evidence provided by Zlatko Medjodovic. Can you see that?
14 A. Yes, I can.
15 Q. Now, I assume, then, that you read the ballistic report since
16 you're referring to it; right?
17 A. No, I haven't because this was referred to in the situation. So
18 it was included in the situation.
19 MS. BOLTON: I'm sorry to interrupt again, Your Honours. I don't
20 see any footnotes in the English version, so I'm just having difficulty
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: There is a footnote 2 in the English version in
23 the middle of page 30 of the hard copy, Azem Agovic, Alen Gicevic, and
24 ballistic evidence from Zlatko Medjodovic.
25 MS. BOLTON: Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're welcome.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for your
4 Q. I'm asking you this because in that ballistics report, once again
5 we have the following situation, that the crime technicians just
6 established one projectile, one bullet having hit the tram. Now, would
7 that change your finding, and would you say that it wasn't a machine-gun
8 after all, but an ordinary rifle, if I can put it that way, a sniper
10 A. There are also conclusions -- just a moment. I conclude that the
11 machine-gun because she saw -- as I stated this, the -- Slavica Livnjak,
12 the driver of tram 268 saw the tram ahead of her hit in the pantograph,
13 and then heard a shot, so there were at least two projectiles separate
14 from each other.
15 Q. So I can conclude, then, that you arrived at that conclusion that
16 it was indeed a machine-gun on the basis of a statement shown you by the
17 witness and not on the basis of a crime report; right?
18 A. That is correct because I have not read the crime report.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Very well. I'm now going to look at
20 case number 10, and the English version of that is on page 43. It is,
21 Your Honours, the incident in our annex B, number 9, and it refers to
22 Spicaste Stijena or Sharpstone.
23 Q. My question is this: Who provided you with the information as to
24 where the positions of the BH Army were located in that general locality?
25 A. Partly, it is written down in the situation, and I was pointed
1 out the location of Sharpstone by the investigator, and I was also told
2 by the investigator that the Sharpstone and was occupied by the VRS at
3 the time.
4 Q. Here towards the end of your analysis of this particular case,
5 you say, since you established that it's a distance that is greater than
6 800 metres, the position from where the position was targeted, you said
7 the distance from which they were hit was a great -- more than 800
8 metres, and without its sights, it's difficult to identify but
9 nonetheless possible. Now, my question is, what can be seen with the
10 naked eye at a distance of 800 metres if you are looking at a target
11 which happens to be a human being? Can you actually see it?
12 A. With the naked eye, possibly you would see the optic moving, so
13 you would see movement at 800 metres.
14 Q. And using sights with a 4-times magnification, can you see what
15 the person is holding in their hands or carrying at a distance greater
16 than 800 metres?
17 A. It would be very difficult.
18 Q. All right. Thank you. And the last incident that I'd like to
19 refer to in your report is case number 3, and that is on page 43 of the
20 English. No, I apologise. It's page 50. And it is annex 7 B of the
21 indictment that we are dealing with now, that particular incident. It is
22 (redacted) who was on the spot with her daughter.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And I think, Your Honours, that we
24 would have to go into private session for a moment because I seem to
25 remember that one of those individuals was a protected witness, and I
1 apologise if I've disclosed anything. I'm not quite sure, but I seem to
2 remember that being the case.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: May we have a redaction at page 57, line 5, even
4 though the stenographer didn't pick up the name, and may the Chamber
5 please move into private session.
6 [Private session]
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Have you refreshed your memory as to that section of your report,
23 A. Just a moment, please.
24 Q. Certainly. Take a moment.
25 A. Yes, I have.
1 Q. Now, as far as I understood your analysis and your conclusions
2 with relation to this specific incident is that the location which was
3 indicated by the witness shows it to be at a distance over 1.200 metres
4 so that it was impossible for the sniper to target in the way in which
5 the witness described it. That is your first conclusion; is that right?
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. And then on the basis of your assessments of the situation and
8 the given locality, you go on to reconstruct the incident on the basis of
9 which you consider that the sniper should have entered -- must have
10 entered no-man's land and then targeted that way as described further on
11 by the witness.
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Now, you cannot tell us, nor do you know, nor can you assume,
14 whether it was a VRS or BH Army sniper who was there on that no-man's
15 land? You can't say either way, can you?
16 A. It would be very difficult. The only thing that I would be able
17 to get from the facts and from the terrain is that the sniper would have
18 come from the direction of the VRS because the ABiH positions that I was
19 -- that I was shown were up on a ridge, and it would be very difficult to
20 get down from the ridge to a position, and it would be almost impossible
21 to get up to the ridge to get back again to their own troops. So it
22 would be very dangerous for them to do that. So that's why I concluded
23 that the shooter must have come from the east because it's into a valley
24 which offers some cover.
25 Q. That is based on what the investigator of the OTP told you was no
1 man's land, that particular territory, so that's how you made your
2 conclusions; right?
3 A. He told me that that had been no-man's land at the time.
4 Q. I'm asking you this because the Trial Chamber in the Dragomir
5 Milosevic trial in paragraph 406 of the judgement was not able to arrive
6 at a conclusion as to who could have arrived at that locality.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Bolton
8 MS. BOLTON: I don't think it's appropriate -- my friend
9 congratulated the witness earlier for the fact that he hasn't read the
10 judgement, and it's not appropriate, in my respectful submission, to be
11 making any reference to the findings of another trial Tribunal. This
12 Chamber is going to make its own assessment of the facts and make its own
13 findings based on evidence that it hears, which may differ from the
14 evidence that was heard in some respects in D. Milosevic. SO there ought
15 not be any questioning, in my respectful submission, of the witness based
16 on a judgement, A, he's never read, and, B, that this Tribunal ought not
17 to be taking into consideration.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If I might be allowed to comment. I
20 don't wish in any way to suggest what the conclusions of the Trial
21 Chamber might be. I'm just putting a theoretical question to the
22 witness, and my theoretical question was that you can't really know who
23 was on that no man's land, who could have reached that piece of no man's
24 land. So I don't see why I can't put that to the witness and ask him
25 something that came from anybody's conclusion, regardless of the fact
1 whether it was another Trial Chamber or an article in the newspaper, to
2 be quite frank. I think it's an assumption. I allow the witness to look
3 at an assumption, especially as he is an expert witness, so why can't I
4 put somebody else's conclusion to this witness?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The trouble is the conclusion that you are putting
6 is a Trial Chamber's conclusion. It's not a conclusion reached by
7 another witness. Now, I'm not quite sure whether you want this Trial
8 Chamber to take the findings of another Trial Chamber as testimony. So
9 there is absolutely nothing wrong in putting an assumption to the
10 witness. There's everything wrong in putting a legal finding of another
11 Trial Chamber to the witness. He is not -- he's a layperson in law, for
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I did not wish to put this as a
14 legal conclusion, Your Honours, but as a conclusion of fact, as a
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but that's still a conclusion of the Trial
17 Chamber. It's not a statement of a witness. Now, this Trial Chamber is
18 going to make its conclusions based on the evidence it hears. Do you
19 want the factual finding of another trial to be part of that evidence?
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] What I want to do is this: Through
21 my question, I'm not asking for a factual conclusion to be adopted, but I
22 want the witness to take a position, his own position with respect to a
23 statement of fact, whether that statement of fact has been made by a
24 court of law, a Trial Chamber, or anybody else.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: It would be perhaps be helpful if you put up the
1 factual assumption to the witness without characterising the assumption
2 as a finding of another Trial Chamber.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Very well. I agree, Your Honour.
4 Q. Sir, the representative of the OTP indicated the location
5 where -- and he told you what was no man's lands, what the area under the
6 VRS control was, and what the area under ABiH control was. Now, in this
7 specific case, you drew your conclusions on the basis of your own
8 experience from which place it would be best -- well, that's a sort of
9 unfortunate expression, but it would be most suitable to hit the target
10 as described; right?
11 A. Yes. I concluded what would be a suitable shooting position, a
12 tactically good shooting position.
13 Q. Right. So in analysing this section, you did not have any
14 documents available or facts or evidence available indicating who could
15 have shot from where, that is to say, the "who" being which member of any
16 army, the member of either one of the armies?
17 A. No, I wouldn't have the information.
18 Q. All right.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] May I just take a moment, Your
20 Honours, to consult my colleague because I'm reaching the end of my
21 cross-examination, to see if I haven't left anything out.
22 [Defence counsel confer]
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours, I finish with my
24 cross-examination. Thank you, Mr. Van Der Weijden.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much, Mr. Lukic.
1 Any re-examination, Madam Bolton?
2 MS. BOLTON: Very brief. I better begin by asking if the report
3 could be marked as an exhibit at this juncture.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is. May it please be given an exhibit number.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P490 --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: 490?
7 THE REGISTRAR: 493 marked for identification -- [Microphone not
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it marked for identification? What is the
10 reason for that? Did I hear you say marked for identification, Madam
12 THE REGISTRAR: That's what I heard, Your Honours. [Microphone
13 not activated]
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that what you said, Madam Bolton?
15 MS. BOLTON: No, I'm not asking it be marked for identification.
16 I'm just asking it be marked as an exhibit.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right. That's what I thought I heard.
18 THE REGISTRAR: So it will be Exhibit P493, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
20 Yes, Mr. Lukic, you wanted to say something just before the
21 re-examination begins.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I wanted to say this:
23 According to earlier practice with respect to expert reports that I can
24 state my opinion, that is to say whether I consider that it should be
25 admitted or not, whether it should be admitted or not, so specifically
1 linked to the expert report, we usually did this at the end, right at the
2 end, after redirect and when the expert witness leaves the courtroom that
3 then we can give our arguments. So I think that this may be premature.
4 It's premature to do this at this point about the admission of the expert
5 report now. I feel it's premature.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay, I'll not ask the question. What do you want
7 to do? Do you have any response to that, Madam Bolton.
8 MS. BOLTON: I'm in Your Honours' hands in terms of the practice
9 here. If my friend has an argument he wants to make about the -- whether
10 the report should be marked as an exhibit and he wishes to wait until
11 I've asked my two questions in redirect, that's fine.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. We'll hold the allocation of an exhibit
13 number to the end of your re-examination.
14 MS. BOLTON: Thank you.
15 Re-examination by Ms. Bolton:
16 Q. Just two questions for you, Mr. Van Der Weijden. My friend was
17 asking a question about the ability at a distance of 800 metres or
18 greater to see what a human being was holding in their hand with -- he
19 indicated with sights equipped with 4-times magnification, and your
20 response was that it would be very difficult. In those circumstances, if
21 you can't tell what the person is holding, are you entitled, for example,
22 to assume it's a weapon?
23 A. I would not be entitled to.
24 Q. And my other question relates to, there were two incidents that
25 my friend asked you about where he indicated that there was only one
1 bullet -- I guess evidence of only one bullet found on examination of the
2 trams, and just for clarification, can one bullet injure more than one
4 A. It could.
5 Q. How is that?
6 A. Well, it would be almost impossible if it were to happen out in
7 the open apart from people being behind each other; then the bullet could
8 penetrate one person and then penetrate again in the other person. But
9 bullets tend to start to fragment on hitting hard material, so if we
10 would take a tram which has probably aluminium side walls and glass
11 windows, glass strips, the copper casing of the lead core of the bullet
12 causing it to fragment into two or more bigger parts, which could both
13 injure people, so it could be one bullet that causes more wounds.
14 MS. BOLTON: Okay. Those are all of my questions for the
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
17 Questioned by the Court:
18 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear nothing through the English channel.
20 THE WITNESS: I think I -- because I do understand some French, I
21 think I --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'd -- completely ignoramus, some of us, so we
23 must understand the question before we can let you answer.
24 French/English booth?
25 THE INTERPRETER: It's fine now, yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Can you interpret for us
2 now, or do you want the Judge to repeat the question?
3 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, could the Judge repeat the question,
4 please. Thank you.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Judge.
6 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] My question was this. It
7 concerns the incidents on the tram. Now, is it possible in your opinion
8 with respect to the positions of the snipers, was it possible to
9 establish whether they were able to distinguish between civilian and
10 military persons in the tram, for example?
11 A. No, it would not be, and I would like to explain that. Trams,
12 they have glass windows. If they're dirty, it can already at 50 metres
13 to be very difficult to look into the tram, so even from a larger
14 distance it would be more difficult, and trams, they wobble a bit; they
15 don't have the suspension of cars, so then the people inside, they always
16 -- they are always moving, and then even further is -- if the windows
17 were to be cleaner, they would reflect light, so it would be very
18 difficult to look inside a tram. I think from 300 metres it would almost
19 be impossible.
20 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Reflect light assuming that the light comes from
22 the side where the sniper is?
23 A. Not necessarily so. It would be like these glass windows here in
24 the courtroom, that you can see your own reflection in the window, so
25 making it more difficult to see what's behind the window.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
2 Any questions arising from the questions by the Bench?
3 MS. BOLTON: None for me, thank you.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic?
5 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. That brings us to the
7 conclusion of your testimony, sir. Thank you so much for taking the time
8 off to come and testify. You are now excused. You may stand down and
9 travel well back home. I hope it's not far.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Madam Bolton.
13 MS. BOLTON: Thank you. I still wish to have the report tendered
14 as an exhibit. I'm not certain as to what the basis for my friend's
15 objection is, so perhaps we could hear from him, and I could respond to
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll find out. That report has been tendered.
18 Mr. Lukic, any response?
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I wanted to put
20 forward our arguments with respect to this expert report. Bearing in
21 mind what we've just heard and what we have read, the Defence agrees,
22 yes, yes, yes. Just that. The Defence considers that parts of the
23 expert report in points 3 and 4 are not contentious as far as we are
24 concerned and that they will be useful to the Trial Chamber. However,
25 the Defence considers that the methodology used by this expert in this
1 report referring to points 1, 2, and 5 as such, that it cannot be useful
2 to the Trial Chamber in light of his explanations as to how he analysed
3 some of the incidents. I don't want to go into that at any length and to
4 repeat the answers that we received from him, but he made his expert
5 report on the basis of some assumptions, locations provided to him by a
6 representative of the OTP without taking into consideration, in my
7 opinion, relative material evidence which was also accessible to him.
8 So I think it is only with a complete analysis of the overall
9 evidence would he be able to come up with something that could be helpful
10 for the Trial Chamber in their deliberations. Thank you.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Bolton.
12 MS. BOLTON: I think if I remember to turn on the button, that
13 would be helpful. I think if I understand my friend's argument, it is
14 that there is additional information that could have been made available
15 to him that was not available to him or was not reviewed by him that may
16 have affected his opinions. First, it was open to my friend as he did in
17 some extent in cross-examination to put that additional material to him
18 and to see if it altered his opinion, so he's had that opportunity. And
19 secondly, any issues with respect to deficiencies in his methodology
20 would ultimately go to the weight to be accorded his report and not its
21 admissibility. The test for admissibility would be, is he an expert?
22 This Chamber has already found that he is an expert. Does the subject
23 matter of the report fall within that area of expertise? Again, that's
24 already been ruled on by this Chamber, and any other issues, in my
25 respectful submission, go to weight only.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any reply?
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 The report is admitted into evidence. May it please be given an
5 exhibit number. 493, P493?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, that's Exhibit P493, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you calling the next witness, Madam Bolton?
10 MS. BOLTON: I am not. I was going to ask permission to be
11 excused, if I may.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are excused.
13 MS. BOLTON: Thank you very much.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Saxon. Yes, you are right. Mr. Saxon, you
15 want to do that later?
16 MR. SAXON: For once, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, you always are.
18 MR. SAXON: I doubt that. Perhaps it would be time for the break
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. We'll take the break and come
21 back at quarter to 6.00. Court adjourned.
22 --- Recess taken at 5.13 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 5.43 p.m.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
25 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, Mr. Cannata will call the next witness.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Cannata.
2 MR. CANNATA: Good afternoon, Your Honours. The Prosecution
3 calls Jozef Poje.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, Mr. Poje.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: May you please make the declaration.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
10 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. You may be seated.
12 Yes, Mr. Cannata.
13 WITNESS: JOZEF POJE
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 MR. CANNATA: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Examination by Mr. Cannata:
17 Q. Sir, can you hear me?
18 A. Yes, I can hear you.
19 Q. Can you please state your full name for the record?
20 A. My name is Jozef Poje.
21 Q. Thank you very much.
22 MR. CANNATA: Can we please have 65 ter 4892 on the e-court, and
23 actually, page 4 of the English copy and 6 of the B/C/S. Thank you.
24 Q. Sir, I would like to briefly review your professional background,
25 and I see that you have a copy of some document in front of you, sir; is
1 that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What is that document, please?
4 A. This is a document that I prepared while I was an expert witness
5 in the case of Mr. Martic.
6 Q. Now, sir, from time to time you might need to refresh your
7 memory. If you wish to do so, please ask the Court's permission. Is
8 that understood?
9 A. It's understood.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, you graduated from the JNA military academy in
11 Zadar in 1971; correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Now, can you briefly tell the Court what positions and ranks you
14 had with the JNA after you graduated in 1971?
15 A. After I graduated the military academy in Zadar, for four years I
16 was a commander of a mortar battery of a mixed artillery division.
17 Between 1975 and 1978, I commanded an anti-armour battery of 100
18 millimetre in Ptuj. In 1978, I was transferred to the artillery school
19 centre in Zadar where I worked as a lecturer in theory and rules of
20 firing. I stayed in Zadar for 13 years. I was a lecturer in firing
21 theory and artillery firing rules, including a year at the school for
22 reserve officers, ten years at the military academy, and two years, I
23 taught a course for artillery battalion commanders.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might attempt to be of some assistance - I
1 don't know if this is or not - to the Prosecution, with regard to this
2 gentleman's qualifications as an expert as it relates to artillery, the
3 Defence has no objection.
4 MR. CANNATA: That's very much of assistance. We appreciate Mr.
5 Guy-Smith's remarks, and now we can move on to a different topic of my
6 examination. Thank you very much, sir.
7 Q. Mr. Poje, did you testify as an expert on artillery issues before
8 this Tribunal on two occasions, the Strugar case in 2004 and the Martic
9 case in 2006?
10 A. Yes. I testified as an expert witness in both those cases,
11 General Strugar and Mr. Martic.
12 Q. Thank you. And in case of the Prosecutor versus Martic, were you
13 asked by the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal to prepare an
14 expert report?
15 A. Yes. I was given a task to prepare a report as an artillery
16 expert in the case of Mr. Martic, and I prepared a written report which I
17 submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor.
18 MR. CANNATA: Thank you very much, sir. Madam Registrar, can we
19 please go back to page 1 of the document in front of us.
20 Q. Sir, do you see this document on the screen?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. Do you recognise this document?
23 A. Yes. That is the report that I signed.
24 Q. It's a report for the Martic case that you prepared and signed,
25 isn't it?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you very much.
3 A. That is the document.
4 Q. Thank you very much, sir. Now, in the Martic case, what were you
5 asked to address in your report?
6 A. In the Martic case, there were two focal tasks that I had, two
7 main tasks. The first was, where was the multiple rocket-launcher Orkan,
8 where its location was; and secondly, to provide expert testimony on the
9 dispersion of projectiles in the course of a firing of that weapon, and
10 in relation to dispersion that I mentioned, there was generally a
11 question of whether such a rocket attack was permissible when a
12 settlement or a settled area was in question.
13 Q. Thank you very much, sir. For clarity of the record, when you
14 say: "... whether such a rocket attack ..." do you mean by that the
15 shelling of Zagreb
16 A. Yes. That's exactly what the case was.
17 Q. Thank you very much, sir. Now, moving to the sources of your
18 report, can you tell the Court, what kinds of sources have you used and
19 reviewed to prepare your report for the Martic case?
20 A. In preparing the report, I used relatively large number of works
21 on the -- that I used in the report itself; and as for the two main
22 issues that I discussed that I've already mentioned so far, one of them
23 being where the Orkan weapon was located and the second issue being the
24 shelling of Zagreb
25 of the Serbian army of Krajina as a source; and secondly, I also used the
1 document, the preparation and analysis of combat readiness of the units
2 of the Serbian army of Krajina from 1995; and the third document was the
3 raising of combat readiness of the 1st of May, 1995.
4 Q. Thank you very much, sir. Let me stop you here for a moment.
5 Apart from these three documents that you just have mentioned,
6 can I take you to page 3 of the English copy of the report, which will be
7 page 4 of the B/C/S one. Thank you.
8 Now, do you see in front of you a list of documents?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. Is that the list of documents that you have reviewed to prepare
11 this report?
12 A. Yes. That is the complete or full list of documents that I used
13 in preparing my report.
14 Q. Thank you very much, sir. Now, would you be able to briefly talk
15 the Court through the methodology that you used to prepare the Martic
17 A. Concerning the main question in the report, the main issue, which
18 was who decided on the use of a multiple rocket-launcher Orkan, as I've
19 already mentioned, I used the literature mentioned earlier from which we
20 can see the following: First --
21 Q. Please hold on. Now, the question -- my question has a more
22 general attitude. I would like you to speak -- I would like you to
23 explain to the Court, what was the methodology that you have generally
24 used throughout the whole report that you have drafted, not just one
25 issue, but the whole report. Roughly, what methodology you have used to
1 prepare that report, apart from specific issues. Is that clear?
2 A. Yes, it is clear. I studied thoroughly the literature that was
3 provided to me from the Office of the Prosecutor and also the literature
4 that I found myself, and I tried to answer the questions that were put by
5 the Office of the Prosecutor, and if we look at the contents of the
6 report, we can see that it moves from the general use of artillery and
7 the general rules of firing through an analysis of the types of firing,
8 the methods of firing, types of preparation for firings, dispersion of
9 projectiles, and finally, to the report itself on the issue that
10 concerned Mr. Martic.
11 Q. Thank you very much, sir. Now, let's move on to the substance of
12 your report. We don't have time today to review each single information
13 that you have detailed in your report. What I would propose is to guide
14 you through each section of the report. Can we start from the first
15 substantive section, which is section number 3 which can be found at --
16 one second, Your Honour. Page 6 of the English copy. I'm sorry, I don't
17 have the B/C/S page for that document.
18 Now, sir, the section number 3 is entitled "technical aspects of
19 artillery." Now, can you briefly describe to the Court what it is that
20 you address in this section of the report.
21 A. In this section, I discuss the technical aspects of artillery,
22 and I discuss fire support, classification of artillery, the types --
23 definition and types of artillery firings, definition and types of
24 targets and artillery ammunition.
25 Q. Now, sir, as I already said, we don't have time to go into
1 details, but can I ask to you please have a look at page 37 of the
2 English copy, which will be page 45 of your B/C/S version, and I would
3 like you to briefly discuss the characteristics of the M-87 Orkan
4 multiple rocket-launcher. Now, before you start, could you please tell
5 the Court what an M-87 Orkan multiple rocket-launcher is?
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Once again, if it's of any assistance to the
7 Prosecution, the Defence has no objection to the information that's
8 contained with regard to those pages of this report.
9 MR. CANNATA: Thank you very much. Then I can move on to another
10 topic which I think will be a little bit more difficult for the Defence
11 to agree on, which will be 55 of the English report, page 64 of the B/C/S
13 Q. Sir, in section 392 of your report, you discussed the issue of
14 command and control with regard to artillery. Can you briefly describe
15 to the Court what is that your report says about the issue of command and
16 control over artillery pieces? Thank you.
17 A. Well, I discuss here the command of artillery, and that it is the
18 job of the commander of joint tactical and operational units, commanders,
19 and commands of artillery units in the process of preparation and conduct
20 and carrying out of combat tasks and other tasks.
21 Also, I stressed that the artillery is commanded by a joint
22 tactical and operational unit directly or through his chief of artillery.
23 The use of artillery is the sole responsibility of the commander of the
24 joint tactical and operational group, unit. The artillery is commanded
25 by the command -- by the commander of the supported unit of any level.
1 That would be the gist of command and control of artillery unit.
2 Q. Thank you very much, sir.
3 MR. CANNATA: Can we please have 65 ter 4913, please. Can we
4 move on to page 11 of the English copy and 6 of the B/C/S. Can we please
5 have -- I'm waiting for page 11 of the English copy, please. Thank you.
6 Can we please have paragraph 4.2 zoomed in, which would be the first item
7 on the English copy in front of you, Your Honours.
8 Q. Sir, do you see a document in front of you?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. Is that a document that you used to prepare your section 392 of
11 your report where you discuss command and control over the Orkan units?
12 A. Yes. That's the document that I relied on.
13 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, sir, what does this document say
14 about command and control with the SVK?
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I'm not sure whether the question calls for
16 anything more than just the witness reading that which is said, unless
17 you're asking for -- unless the gentleman is asking for an
18 interpretation. The manner in which the question is put is a bit vague,
19 but I leave it in his fine hands.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Cannata.
21 MR. CANNATA: Yes, I'm simply asking the witness to report his
22 conclusions on this document and the way he treated the information in
23 this report -- in this document to compile his report.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
25 MR. CANNATA: Thank you, sir.
1 Q. Could you please answer to my question. Do you remember that, or
2 would you like me to re-ask the question?
3 A. Could you please repeat your question.
4 Q. I will. Now, what is it in this document that you have used to
5 draft your section of your report on command and control over the M-87
6 Orkan units with the SVK?
7 A. I suppose that you mean the document raising or increasing combat
8 readiness, the order issued by RKS GSVK of the 1st of May, 1995, number
10 Q. Sir, I'm asking you to concentrate your attention on the document
11 that you have in front of you. Do you see that?
12 A. Well, I can see in front of me two documents. One of them is in
13 the English language, and the other one is in Serbo-Croatian.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, this is the very reason that I rose
15 before. Perhaps if we could have the specific language, and I have no
16 objection to that, which I believe is 4, section number 2, read to the
17 witness, and after that -- the witness has that information, he can
18 perhaps comment on it.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Or the witness can read that language himself and
20 tell us.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Fine, Your Honour, whatever.
22 MR. CANNATA:
23 Q. Witness, can you please read out the language at paragraph 4.2 in
24 the B/C/S document in front of you?
25 A. Could you please repeat which item you are referring to, and
1 which document?
2 Q. Sir, you have a screen in front of you. Please disregard the
3 paper copy that you have in front of you. All right. Follow me. You
4 have a screen in front of you. You have a screen in front of you, sir.
5 Could you please look at the document in front of you, the B/C/S
6 document. Do you see that? Do you see a chapter number 4 of that
7 document in the screen in front of you, sir?
8 A. Yes, I can see it.
9 Q. Do you see paragraph number 2 of that?
10 A. Yes, I do, and it says the following in that item:
11 "Unit Orkan is a part of the formation of the 9th Artillery
12 Regiment, and its utilization shall be approved exclusively by the
13 commander of the Main Staff of the Serbian Army of Krajina."
14 MR. CANNATA: That's not what my English translation says, Your
15 Honour. Can I ask you for one moment, please.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: By all means, you have the moment.
17 MR. CANNATA: Thanks. It is my entire fault, Your Honour. I
18 called up the wrong 65 ter number. It is clear now. So can I actually
19 have 65 ter 476 on the screen, please. Can we please move to page 11 of
20 the English copy and 10 of the B/C/S one.
21 Q. Sir, can you read out paragraph --
22 MR. CANNATA: It's one page after this one in the B/C/S, sorry,
23 page 12.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 5.8.
25 MR. CANNATA: One next page, please. Thank you. Next page,
2 Q. Sir, do you see this document?
3 A. Yes, I see it.
4 Q. Do you recognise it?
5 A. Yes. That is a document, the directive on the employment of the
6 Serbian Krajina Army from February 1995.
7 Q. Did you review this document to prepare the report for the Martic
8 case, sir?
9 A. Yes, I did review it.
10 Q. What information did you take out of this document to prepare for
11 your report?
12 A. In preparing my report, I used item 5.8 under number 2, paragraph
13 2. The artillery group of VBR Main Staff of Orkan, and then it says the
14 group commander is the weapons commander, SLR 262 millimetre, firing
15 position in the general Korenica sector, and the tasks that were assigned
16 to this artillery group.
17 Q. Sir, can you help us with the acronyms. Let's start with VBR.
18 What is VBR?
19 A. AG is artillery group; VBR is multiple rocket-launcher; GS is
20 Main Staff; and then in parenthesis, Orkan, which is the name of the
21 multiple rocket-launcher.
22 Q. Thank you very much.
23 A. The following are the commander of the self-propelled weapon, 262
24 millimetre. It's the same weapon, Orkan multiple rocket-launcher.
25 MR. CANNATA: Thank you very much, sir. Can I have this document
1 admitted into evidence, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it so admitted. May it please be given an
3 exhibit number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P494.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 MR. CANNATA: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry. Are we admitting that page or ...
8 MR. CANNATA: The entire document, which is the one that the
9 expert witness Poje used to prepare his report.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay.
11 MR. CANNATA: Sir, can I take you back to your report, please.
12 Can we have it back on the screen. It's 4892. Can we move to page 58 of
13 the English version. Can I have it in B/C/S as well. Thank you. Page
15 Q. Sir, this is section 4 of your report entitled "Doctrine of Using
16 Fire Support." Can you briefly describe to the Court what it is that you
17 address in this part of your report?
18 A. In this part of my report, in this chapter, "Doctrine of Using
19 Fire Support," I talk about the planning of artillery firings, the use of
20 the artillery as such, the target selection, and they are the three main
21 contents of that chapter.
22 MR. CANNATA: Thank you. We don't have any time to go any deeper
23 to that, so I'll move on to section 5, which can be found at page 60 of
24 the English report, 71 of the B/C/S one.
25 Q. Now, this is section 5 of your report entitled "Use of Artillery
1 Support in Populated Areas." Can you briefly describe to the Court what
2 it is discussed in this section, please?
3 A. In that respect and in that chapter, we look at what effects the
4 artillery and it going into operation in populated areas, the problems
5 that arise when you shoot targets in a populated area. I talk about
6 artillery preparation, the choice of weapons and targets, as well, for
7 firing in populated areas. That for the most part would be the contents
8 of that particular chapter.
9 Q. Can I take you to section 5.1. It's page 60, where we are right
10 now. Now, I'm going to read to you the last paragraph of this section,
11 of section 5.1, and I quote:
12 "The Serbian Krajina army units did not conduct an attack on the
13 city of Zagreb
14 conduct direct support operations but was conducting general support
15 operations, most probably to terrorise and fire on the population, their
16 property, and their infrastructure."
17 Firstly, can you please tell the Court what the, again, acronym
18 SRL stand for, if you remember that?
19 A. Self-propelled -- the SRL is self-propelled rocket-launcher.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, I'd like you to explain the statement that I've
21 just read out to you to the Court. Perhaps we can start by explaining,
22 what is the difference, could you describe, between a direct support
23 operation as opposed to a general support operation. Can you tell the
24 Court about that division?
25 A. Direct support is the action of the artillery on targets which
1 have direct effects on the course of the activity of that particular
2 unit, the unit carrying out the operation. For example, direct support
3 to a brigade, the brigade artillery targets the enemy with the aim of
4 carrying out the tasks and assignments of the brigade itself. That means
5 artillery action for the needs of a concrete specific assignment while
6 general support, generally artillery fire support is the fire action of
7 supporting artillery but on targets which do not affect the activity of
8 the supported unit.
9 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, what kind of support operation was that
10 carried out in Zagreb
11 A. Bearing in mind the fact that there was no attack on the city of
13 Orkan - to my mind, this was general support.
14 Q. Now, can you now explain what do you mean when you say that there
15 was no attack on the city of Zagreb
16 shelling through Orkan rockets against the same city? How is that
18 A. If we look at the documents, the city of Zagreb itself was not
19 attacked by units of the Serbian Army of Krajina. The target of the
20 attack was not Zagreb
22 for some reason, possibly because there was thought in advance when
23 special targeting was done on military facilities in the town of Zagreb
24 Q. When you say that the city of Zagreb itself was not attacked by
25 units of the Serbian Army of Krajina, you mean ground troops and aviation
1 troops, that sort of troops?
2 A. I mean the action of the army as a whole. As far as I know, it
3 wasn't attacked by armoured infantry units. They didn't attack the city
4 of Zagreb
5 Q. Sir, what do you base upon your proposition that the use of
6 Orkans against the city of Zagreb
7 "... most probably to terrorise and fire on the population, their
8 property, and infrastructure."
9 What is the basis of your statement?
10 A. If we look at the errors in initial elements and the preparation
11 thereof, and if we look at the dispersion of the targets when
12 multiple-barrel launchers are used - in this particular case, it was the
13 Orkan SRL - then we come to the conclusion on the basis of the firing
14 tables that the image of dispersion was very great; and if a mean hit
15 went through the centre of the military target - let us assume that
16 because I don't have the necessary information as to what the military
17 target was of the shooting - so if we take the mean value, targeting the
18 centre of a military target, then the surface of dispersion, the area
19 dispersion is very great, which automatically means that part of the hits
20 will fall outside and away from the target itself and inflict losses on
21 the population, the infrastructure, and so on and so forth.
22 MR. CANNATA: Thank you, sir. Your Honours, I'm running a little
23 bit late. Can I have some extra time? I promise I'll keep it within ten
24 more minutes.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may.
1 MR. CANNATA: Thank you very much. Sir, can we please move to
2 page 61 of the English copy of your report, which is section 6, which can
3 be found at page 73 of the B/C/S. Thank you.
4 Q. Sir, this is section 6 of your report, which is entitled: "The
5 Use of VBR By the SVK on 2 and 3 May." In this section, you analyse
6 three documents. We already reviewed the first one, which is 65 ter 476,
7 which has been admitted into evidence.
8 MR. CANNATA: Can I please now have 65 ter 4913. We've been
9 there before. This is the document that we've shown to the witness a
10 little bit earlier. Can I have page 11 of the English and 6 of the B/C/S
11 original and have paragraph 4.2 zoomed in.
12 Q. Sir, did you use this document to compile section 6 of your
14 A. Yes. That is the document that speaks about preparation
15 analysing the combat readiness of the artillery, and I used .4, the task
16 to be realised in 1985, and subsection 2: The Orkan unit is within the
17 7th MAP
18 commander of the Main Staff of the Serbian Army of Krajina.
19 Q. So what did you take from this document that is significant to
20 the section of your report dealing with command and control of Orkan
22 A. From this document, you can see where Orkan was located at that
23 point in time, and what is even more important, perhaps, is the section
24 which says that its deployment is exclusively approved by the commander,
25 the Main
1 command of the Main Staff of the Serbian Army of Krajina, the SVK.
2 MR. CANNATA: Thank you very much, sir. Can I have this document
3 admitted into evidence, Your Honours, please.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: We may do that. May I just find out, what does
5 the acronym MAP
6 THE WITNESS: Mixed artillery regiment.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. The document is admitted into
8 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P495.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 MR. CANNATA: Now, can we move to 65 ter 4888.
12 Q. Sir, do you see a document in front of you? Thank you.
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. Is this one of the documents that you used to prepare section 6
15 of your report?
16 A. Yes, that's right. This is one of those documents.
17 Q. Can you tell us what is important, what is significant to your
18 report in this document?
19 A. In this -- this document is about raising combat readiness and
20 talks about the transfer of Orkan from the present positions to a new
21 location, so the relocation of Orkan, and that new location is at the
22 command post of the 21st Corps. I think what is interesting to note here
23 and look at is paragraph 4, which says that the commander of the Orkan
24 squad is hereby deployed to the 21st corps command post in readiness for
25 the reception of tasks from the commander of the SVK or Colonel Dilas, so
1 it says that Orkan is under the direct command of the Main Staff of the
2 Serbian Army of Krajina and its commander or Colonel Dilas.
3 Q. Sir, who signed this document?
4 A. The document was signed by General-Lieutenant Celeketic,
5 Lieutenant-General Celeketic.
6 Q. Do you know what position General Celeketic had at this time in
7 May 1995?
8 A. I think that at the time, he was the command of the Main Staff of
9 the Serbian Army of Krajina.
10 Q. Thank you very much, sir.
11 MR. CANNATA: Can we move this document into evidence, Your
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is received into evidence. May it please be
14 given an exhibit number.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P496.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
17 MR. CANNATA:
18 Q. Now, sir, on the basis of these documents that you have just
19 looked at, is whether your own military experience, your own expertise as
20 an artillery expert, what conclusion did you reach as to who commanded
21 and controlled the M-87 Orkans which were fired upon Zagreb on May 1995?
22 A. On the basis of the documents that I looked at, and we've
23 mentioned three of those here, we can say that the tasks and assignments
24 given to Orkan were issued by the Main Staff of the Serbian Army of
25 Krajina or, rather, its commander or Colonel Dilas.
1 MR. CANNATA: Thank you, sir. I have just one more question,
2 Your Honour. Then I'm done with this witness.
3 Can we move to page 67 of the English report, which is 4892, and
4 page 80 of the B/C/S copy.
5 Q. Sir, section 6.3 contains your conclusions of the report. Would
6 you briefly describe your conclusions to the Chamber.
7 A. On the basis of everything that I have become aware of, on the
8 basis of the literature that I studied and the documents that I was shown
9 or had access to, I concluded that even if there were military targets in
10 the city of Zagreb
11 characteristics, the use of using rockets for targets had no sense
12 because in targeting those facilities, this would have an effect on the
13 population, its infrastructure, and all the rest.
14 So once again, let me say that I consider that there was
15 absolutely no sense in targeting Zagreb because it was known that there
16 would be a lot of casualties among the civilians, that it was completely
17 unreasonable, therefore, to target Zagreb
18 MR. CANNATA: Thank you very much, sir.
19 That concludes my examination-in-chief, Your Honour, and I'm
20 grateful of the extra time. Thank you.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're welcome. Thank you very much.
22 Mr. Guy-Smith.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
25 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. You know General Perisic, do you not?
3 A. Yes, I do know him.
4 Q. As a matter of fact, you worked with him at the artillery centre
5 in Zagreb
6 A. Yes, I did. He was first chief of the department for tactics,
7 and after, head of the artillery school centre.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly be asked to approach
9 the microphones, please. Thank you.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH:
11 Q. You had a hard choice to make, I believe. That was in June of
12 1991 when there was the emerging war with Slovenia; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And among other things, you sought General Perisic's counsel
15 concerning how best for you to proceed, and by that, I mean whether or
16 not to remain in the then JNA or - because you were Slovenian - to
17 terminate your service with the JNA.
18 A. I don't see a question there.
19 Q. I'm waiting for -- okay, my question to you is, you asked General
20 Perisic's counsel, and by that I mean his views, on the issue of whether
21 you should remain in the JNA or terminate your service with the JNA
22 because you were Slovenian?
23 A. On the 1st of August, 1991, I tabled a request to leave the
24 Yugoslav People's Army and stated the reasons I wished to do that. The
25 head of the artillery school centre, General Perisic, who was Colonel
1 Perisic at the time, called me to come to his office. He asked me
2 whether I had my mind set on leaving the army and when I said, yes, I had
3 made up my mind, he asked me whether I had a job to go to in Slovenia
4 and when I answered in the affirmative, he wished me well, bon voyage,
5 and gave his subordinates the task of doing everything to see that I
6 could leave the Yugoslav People's Army the very next day, on the 2nd. So
7 I'm very grateful to him for having done that, and whenever I talk to
8 anybody about how I came to leave the Yugoslav People's Army, I always
9 speak of General Perisic in the best of terms because I had absolutely no
10 problems in leaving the Yugoslav People's Army, nor did anybody attempt
11 to hold me back, and as I had made up my mind, he respected my decision
12 and signed it.
13 Q. Thank you for that response. I'd like to talk to you for a
14 moment about your report, and very briefly, you first prepared this
15 report for another case; correct? For the Martic case?
16 A. Yes, I wrote that report for the Martic trial.
17 Q. And after you prepared your report for the Martic case and you
18 testified in the Martic case, were you contacted by the Prosecution again
19 with regard to this report being used in the Perisic case?
20 A. Yes, that's right. The Prosecution did contact me and said that
21 they would need for the Perisic case for me to present my conclusions
22 again linked to the deployment of Orkan.
23 Q. When did that occur?
24 A. I think it was probably three weeks ago. I can't be sure of the
25 date. I didn't make a note of it, but thereabouts, three weeks or a
1 month, that far back.
2 Q. Did they supply you with the fact that adjudicated facts had been
3 entered by this Trial Chamber concerning aspects of the Zagreb
4 A. I just had documents made available to me that I had looked at
5 during the Martic trial. I didn't have any additional documents given to
6 me to look at for today's testimony.
7 Q. During the time that you were involved in the Martic case, did
8 you learn from the Prosecution that at 1300 hours on the 1st of May,
9 1995, Milan Celeketic in the presence of inter alia Milan Martic ordered
10 artillery fire on Sisak, south-east of Zagreb?
11 A. No, I'm not aware of that document.
12 Q. Were you made aware of the following fact: That on the 3rd of
13 May, 1995, Milan Martic stated:
14 "As a countermeasure to what Tudjman did to you here, we shelled
15 all their cities, Sisak several times and Karlovac, Zagreb yesterday and
16 today. This was done for you. Today, an ultimatum followed if they
17 continued to attack our besieged forces, we will continue to attack
19 Were you made aware of that particular pronouncement by Milan
21 A. I was aware of that declaration of his, but I couldn't tell you
22 as I sit here today where exactly I read about this. But I did see this
23 in one of the documents that I was presented from the Prosecution, but --
24 Q. Were you also made aware of the fact that in a radio interview on
25 the 5th of May, 1995, Milan Martic stated:
1 "That order was given by me personally as a retaliation to Franjo
2 Tudjman and his staff for the order he had given to commit aggression
3 against the western Slovenia
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Cannata.
5 MR. CANNATA: I'm sorry to interrupt. I wish to correct the
6 record. It states "western Slovenia," while I do believe it should be
7 "Western Slavonia
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Works for me.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Slavonia. The matters that you are
10 now putting forth were not something that I dealt with. What I dealt
11 with was the results of the firings, the errors in the initial elements,
12 the dispersion of shots in order to come to a conclusion because there
13 was no sense. It was very unreasonable to attack Zagreb or any other
14 built-up area. I did not go into who issued the order. The main problem
15 that I dealt with was the technical aspects and not any political or any
16 other considerations.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH:
18 Q. Let me ask you the following. I'm still going to ask you some
19 questions with regard to whether or not you had this information, that in
20 an Article in Agence France published on 6 May, 1995, Milan Martic is
21 reported as saying:
22 "I personally gave the order to bombard Zagreb as a response to
23 Croatian President Franjo Tudjman and the Croatian leadership behind the
24 aggression on Western Slavonia and crimes on civilians."
25 A. I heard of that, but I cannot tell you who from.
1 Q. Okay. Were you made aware of the fact that a meeting in Knin on
2 the 5th of May, 1995, with you and special envoy Yasushi Akashi, Milan
3 Martic stated in response to Yasushi Akashi's condemnation of the rocket
4 attacks on Zagreb
5 "Had I not ordered the rocket attacks, they would have continued
6 to bomb our cities."
7 A. I'm not aware of that.
8 Q. The reason I'm quiet here is I'm waiting for the response. Okay.
9 Thank you.
10 Could you tell us who Milan Martic was -- what his position was
11 at the time that Zagreb
12 A. He was the President of the Serbian Krajina.
13 Q. To your knowledge - and once again, if you know - was he the
14 political head of state of the Republika Srpska Krajina?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And he was, in that capacity, the Supreme Commander of the army,
17 was he not?
18 A. Yes. As a general principle, a head of state is at the same time
19 the Supreme Commander of the armed forces, and I think he was so too.
20 Q. With regard to the question or the issue of command and control,
21 had you been supplied with the information that Milan Martic, in his
22 capacity as President of the Republika Srpska Krajina and Supreme
23 Commander of the SVK, ordered the shelling of Zagreb, would that change
24 your analysis at all, sir?
25 A. No, it wouldn't. Irrespective of who issued the order to use the
1 Orkan weapon, my opinion remains the same, and the conclusion that I set
2 forth in my report would remain unchanged. In other words, my opinion
3 would not change in respect of who it was who ordered the shelling of
5 Q. When you say your opinion would not change, I take it that there
6 what you are focusing on is not only the issue of who ordered it, but its
7 appropriateness or lack of appropriateness?
8 A. Yes, because anyone who decides to use a weapon in order to aim
9 at a target, before using such a weapon he should consult with others,
10 and, also, he should study the possible consequences.
11 Q. With regard to the answer that you've just given, when you say
12 anyone who decides to use a weapon, here for purposes of our discussion,
13 because the order came from Martic, it is Martic who has decided to use
14 the weapon. Are we in agreement on that?
15 A. Yes, we are in agreement.
16 Q. If Martic issues an order that a weapon is to be fired, now, do
17 you know how that order would be followed in the chain of command?
18 A. I assume that the Main Staff would have to advise Mr. Martic if
19 he was the one who issued the order for the shelling of Zagreb of the
20 consequences, the possible consequences of that shelling. Irrespective
21 of the chain of command, if I'm a commander and issue an order, a
22 subordinate of mine who is an expert in a specific field, for instance,
23 in artillery, would have an opportunity to provide their opinion as to
24 the consequences, the possible consequences of such shelling. If,
25 however, the order is insisted upon, then they would act upon it. But I
1 don't know in this particular case whether anyone warned Mr. Martic about
2 the consequences or whether he asked for such an opinion, but I do
3 consider that regardless of everything, before the shelling was
4 conducted, information should have been provided as to the possible
6 Q. The individuals who would have been in a position to give that
7 information to President Martic, that would have been the head of the
8 artillery, correct, or would that have been Celeketic as head of the Main
10 A. According to -- in my opinion, I think it should be the chief of
11 artillery, either directly or via the commander, the Chief of the Main
13 Q. Now, to your knowledge was any information given to you by the
14 Prosecution concerning any claimed military targets in Zagreb?
15 A. No. I was not aware or given any facts as to which military
16 targets these would have been that would justify the use of the multiple
17 rocket-launcher Orkan.
18 Q. Apart from the issue of the appropriateness of shelling an area
19 in which there is a civilian population, were you given any information
20 concerning specific areas in Zagreb
21 targets? And by this, if I can be of some assistance, referring Court
22 and counsel to your prior testimony in Martic, page 5211. You were asked
23 the following questions and gave the following answers:
24 "Now, as military targets, then, in Zagreb, we have the
25 presidential palace listed, the Ministry of Defence, Pleso airport, all
1 of which were hit. Can we say and conclude that those were operational
2 or strategic goals even -- and that as such those targets represented the
3 target of this indirect artillery fire as provided by Orkan?"
4 And your answer:
5 "Yes. They were the possible targets in line of the general fire
6 support that Orkan was used for. A different weapon could have been
7 used, but in this case it was indeed Orkan.
8 "Q. So these three targets that were enumerated according to the
9 rules of artillery profession are military targets, are they not, Mr.
11 And you answered --
12 "Yes, they are."
13 A. Yes, they are. Yes, they are military targets. However, I would
14 like to stress here that I was not given information that these were the
15 targets that were actually targeted but that they were possible targets
16 in Zagreb
17 Supreme Command of the Croatian army. It is a possible target, the Main
18 Staff, but I don't really have any information showing that this was
19 actually the target, and that is why in my report, I say that if these
20 targets were to be targeted that consciously they would know that there
21 would be civilian casualties because of the dispersion of fire with this
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: How much longer are you likely be to, sir?
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I could speak with my colleague for a brief
25 moment. I was actually thinking about that when I saw the time. I don't
1 think there's all that terribly much more that I would have to ask this
2 gentleman. I'd rather --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Speak to your colleague.
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to tell us how much longer you are
6 going to be?
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yeah, I'm knocking things out very rapidly. I
8 would probably be about another 10 minutes.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. In that event, we'll take a break and come
10 back tomorrow at quarter past 2.00 in the same courtroom. Court
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.
13 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 3rd of February,
14 2009, at 2.15 p.m.