1 Wednesday, 21 July 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.37 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.

7 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

8 JUDGE PARKER: If I could remind you of the affirmation you took

9 at the beginning of your evidence which still applies.

10 Mr. Petrovic.

11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

12 WITNESS: JANKO VILICIC [Resumed]

13 [Witness answered through interpreter]

14 Examined by Mr. Petrovic: [Continued]

15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vilicic, yesterday we discussed firing from

16 the firing position VP-1 at C-3, C-4, C-5 targets. Now, can we focus on

17 VP-3. Can you please explain briefly your analysis of dispersion while

18 firing from VP-3 at C-3. Let us begin there.

19 A. On this slide, we see the firing position VP-3 which is firing at

20 the firing position C-3. That is, the mortar group in Bogosica Park. On

21 the next slide, we can see that only at the initial stage while simple

22 preparation of data is being made, only part, or rather the whole of the

23 Old Town was covered. However, after the correction of firing, the hits

24 targeted the surrounding of Bogosica Park which is very far away from the

25 Old Town. Under such conditions, if we have a precise range, they will

1 not fall within the Old Town. However, if there is a wind, as I mentioned

2 yesterday, a number of projectiles may fall within this zone here. That

3 is to say, that the whole picture or pattern here will be moved in a

4 translatory manner with respect to the firing direction. That means that

5 some of the projectiles would hit the green zones. A general conclusion

6 would be that provided we have defined the precise firing range, in none

7 of these cases, a projectile fired from VP-3 of 82-millimetre mortar would

8 fall within the Old Town. However, if there was a mistake in the estimate

9 of the range, then some of the projectiles may have fallen in to the

10 northern part of the Old Town.

11 That means that if there was an error in the estimate of range,

12 the so-called shortfall, then some of the projectiles may have landed into

13 the northern part of the Old Town in the zone above and around the Stradun

14 street. I'm pointing now at Stradun. So they would hit this northern

15 part of the town.

16 Q. Could you please tell us, this graph that we are looking at now,

17 in the English version of your report, where can we find it?

18 A. That's figure --

19 Q. Is that on page 59?

20 A. Yes. That's the first figure that I've shown. That's figure 4.10

21 on page 59 in the English version. And without these green and red areas,

22 the next picture on page 60, 4.01 -- 4.101, as I said, this yellow

23 rectangle, this dot here corresponds to this dot in figure 4.101. That is

24 the right-hand angle of this rectangle in terms of distance from the

25 Old Town corresponds to this rectangle in the figure.

1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vilicic. Can we please now move to VP-3, and let

2 us hear your analysis with regard to C-4 target.

3 A. On the following diagram, you can see this blue line which

4 signifies the azimuth direction of firing at C-4 targets. During firing,

5 we can see in figure 4.11 on page 61, well, we can see that in the course

6 of an abbreviated preparation as opposed to what we heard earlier when we

7 made a simple preparation, and under harsher conditions dictating better

8 definition of initial element and lower margin of error, we can see that

9 part of the Old Town is covered by the dispersion pattern of initial

10 elements determined in abbreviated preparation process.

11 As I said yesterday, when determining and correcting procedure, a

12 number of projectile would certainly fall inside the Old Town. The next

13 diagram shows this yellow rectangle which signifies dispersion of

14 projectiles after the corrections and after we have accurately determined

15 the range which indicates that unfortunately again, quite a big portion of

16 the Old Town, from Stradun and the gate at Ploce, would be covered, which

17 means that during regular firing at C-4, quite a few projectiles would

18 fall inside the Old Town.

19 This becomes even more complex if some of the projectiles were

20 exposed to gusts of wind called Bura. We have taken the wind velocity to

21 be 10 metres per second. And just so that you get an idea about that,

22 when we have a wind blowing 10 metres per second, the range is increased

23 by 150 metres. If we assume that that was the velocity of the wind, then

24 the projectiles would fall within this 150-metre zone. But as I said,

25 they were not able to determine the actual ballistic wind which can be

1 five times higher in upper layers as opposed to the ground wind. Then

2 most of the time, the trajectory would be above 300 metres, and this

3 overshoot or deviation from firing can even be several hundred metres. We

4 have analysed this best-case scenario when the ground wind was - which it

5 never actually happens - was equal to the velocity of the wind in the

6 upper layers, and that is the ballistic wind was actually only 10 metres

7 per second. That is the best possible scenario in order to have the

8 fewest number of projectiles hitting the Old Town.

9 If the projectiles were exposed to lateral wind, then the

10 projectiles as you could have seen from all these previous cases would

11 fall lower. That means that they would fall in the more southern portion.

12 And this cumulative corresponds to the pattern, or rather the figure on

13 page 62 marked 4.111. You can see that the major portion of the northern

14 part of the town was covered, which means that in this case as well, a

15 considerable number of projectiles, while regularly firing at C-4 target,

16 would fall into the Old Town of Dubrovnik.

17 Q. Thank you. Mr. Vilicic, can you please --

18 A. I did not provide a magnified image, but I think you can see that

19 this northeastern part of Dubrovnik was subjected to a probability or

20 possibility of 82-millimetre shells falling inside it.

21 Q. When firing from VP-3 to C-4, can you tell us or just rather

22 clarify your expert report, pages 63 and 64, what these diagrams show

23 exactly.

24 A. As I said at the beginning when I showed the results of the firing

25 from VP-3 at C-4, my primary concern was an estimate that there was

1 actually ample time for abbreviated preparations, which means the fewer

2 projectiles were supposed to hit the Old Town. Figure 4.12 and 4.21

3 indicated the situation when there was not enough time for abbreviated

4 preparations, but rather the initial firing followed simple preparation.

5 So the highest probability was in a reality of that being done after the

6 command failed to provide support from 130-millimetre guns, it was only to

7 be expected that the battalion commander try with his mortars to

8 neutralise the Croatian mortars. However, unfortunately as you know, that

9 had adverse effects under such weather conditions, and it provided a good

10 chance for very many projectiles hitting the Old Town.

11 Q. Mr. Vilicic, can we now analyse the dispersion pattern from VP-3

12 targeting the C-5.

13 A. This is shown in the next slide, the azimuth of firing is

14 signified by this blue line --

15 MR. WEINER: Objection, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

17 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, the witness just made a statement

18 concerning the use of 130-millimetre, of the failure to use 130-millimetre

19 guns and the effect on the Old Town as a result of that failure. That

20 does not appear within his report. Further there is no evidence that

21 130-millimetre mortars were ever asked to fire at any targets in the

22 vicinity of the Old Town. Rather, as you recall those were asked to fire

23 out in the Lapad area and those were asked to fire out in the area of the

24 Libertas Hotel. So I move to strike that as being not only outside of the

25 expertise of the witness, it's outside of the information of this witness,

1 and it's outside of the evidence of this case.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, allow me to explain.

4 As my colleague certainly knows, this is a person who is an artillery

5 expert. There is not a better person that the Defence can question about

6 all aspects of using artillery and mortars at the time and place that we

7 are discussing here. In addition to that, my learned friend can look at

8 the second part of the expert analysis and the first part, the

9 introductory part where this particular artillery piece is analysed, where

10 it's characteristics are presented, and where its use or the absence of

11 its use are discussed in a specific situation. I can actually give you

12 the pages concerned, but that is in parts 1 and 2 of our expert analysis.

13 You will find there the fact that the weapon was not used first

14 and foremost. And secondly, you will find the characteristics of this

15 weapon. So I don't see anything more logical but to ask the expert

16 witness to give his views on this. After all, this is an expert, an

17 expert witness who gives his expert opinion. And of course, the

18 Honourable Trial Chamber will assess the facts that are in evidence,

19 including expert opinions, and they are ultimately going to rule on all

20 these matters. Thank you, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Each of you are partly correct; each of you partly

22 not correct in your submissions. Clearly, the witness has the expertise

23 to indicate that 130-millimetre Howitzers are more accurate if that is the

24 case in their firing in this situation. So that were the Howitzers to be

25 fired, he would expect that their shells would fall with less dispersion

1 than the 120-millimetre mortars. That is his expertise.

2 He is going on, though, beyond that by commenting on the factual

3 evidence to say because command didn't allow 130-millimetre Howitzers to

4 fire, the consequences for Dubrovnik were this and that. In that respect,

5 Mr. Weiner's submission is correct. That step is something which this

6 Chamber must make if the factual foundations are established in the

7 evidence and if we draw upon the expertise of this witness. So his

8 evidence properly goes only to, in his opinion, whether one weapon is

9 better, more accurate, more reliable in these circumstances than the

10 other. Beyond that, his evidence is not expert evidence and is slipping

11 into our position as triers of fact and would not be admitted to that

12 extent. Thank you, gentlemen.

13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Q. Mr. Vilicic, we started --

15 A. May I just ask the Honourable Trial Chamber to say something. I

16 agree -- do you allow me, Your Honour, to say a few words, Mr. President?

17 JUDGE PARKER: I think, Mr. Vilicic, that we are going to proceed

18 much more quickly if you simply listen to the questions put to you by

19 Mr. Petrovic and simply answer those. I know that you have an enormous

20 knowledge and you'd like to share with all of us, but Mr. Petrovic knows

21 the points that are important to the case, and he will direct you to

22 those, and if you'd confine your evidence to that, we will move more

23 quickly. We are limited in time. We must get to the issues that are

24 important, and only those, in the time we have.

25 Mr. Petrovic.

1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. Mr. Vilicic, please let us look at VP-3 targeting C-5.

3 A. On this slide -- or rather, on the preceding slide, we showed the

4 basic azimuth at the piece which is 100 metres to the north of the

5 Old Town of Dubrovnik. On this slide now, in order to speed matters up,

6 we can see the dispersion of projectiles after the correction was carried

7 out, as I've already said, on the assumption that the range was

8 established correctly. This clearly shows that without the effect of the

9 wind, a considerable number of projectiles are going to fall into the

10 northern part of the Old Town. Of course, now under the influence of the

11 wind, the dispersion would go outside the Old Town if there is a

12 longitudinal wind. And if it were a lateral wind, then most of the area

13 of the Old Town would have shells falling into it.

14 Q. Where is all of this in your expertise?

15 A. It is in the second part of the expertise.

16 Q. Page 82?

17 A. Yes, page 82. It is figure 22.1 on page 82. As I've been

18 explaining all the time, an adequate figure would be 22.11 on page 84.

19 That would correspond to the slide we're looking at now. It's enlarged

20 here, so there's a bit of imprecision. This can be seen here to the north

21 of the green rectangle. We can see that the part of the Old Town of

22 Dubrovnik above Stradun is exposed to the fall of projectiles if they do

23 fall into the Old Town.

24 Q. Thank you. I think that we have fully dealt with VP-3 now and its

25 dispersion patterns.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So now can we move on to VP-4.

3 A. VP-4 -- I'm sorry. I just have to say that I gave a survey here

4 if C-6 is targeted, C-6.

5 Q. We'll get to that, please. Or rather, I'm sorry. Let's do it

6 this way. Can I ask you while we are still dealing with VP-3, can we deal

7 with C-6 as well, and then please tell us why you find it relevant. What

8 does it actually constitute?

9 A. As we analyse the dispersion of projectiles around C-3, C-4, and

10 C-5, that is to say positions that two, three hundred metres away from the

11 Old Town, C-3, and C-4 is 200 metres away from the Old Town, and C-5 is

12 100 metres north of the Old Town, we now wanted to see what positions

13 could be there, that is to say, at a particular distance from the

14 Old Town, those that do not imperil the Old Town. That is to say, which

15 positions do not mean that the Old Town will be shelled as well. So we

16 looked at this street, Put JNA which is 500 metres to the west of the

17 Old Town. That's here, C-6.

18 It is 500 metres away from the Old Town. So we analysed this, and

19 we wanted to see what the situation was. First of all, is it simple

20 preparation that was carried out? We see that the probability is very low

21 for having any projectile fall into the Old Town, especially if correction

22 is carried out. We see that this is at a considerable distance from the

23 Old Town. So on the basis of that, we came to the conclusion that there

24 was no need to analyse this particular firing position any longer. We

25 came to the conclusion that as opposed to firing positions that were at

1 100, 200 or 300 or 350 metres away from the Old Town, a firing position

2 that would be 500 metres away from the Old Town would not imperil the

3 Old Town. That is to say, when there is a counterattack, then -- when

4 there is counterbattery fire, then there would be no shells falling into

5 the Old Town.

6 Q. Did I understand you correctly that your conclusion is that the

7 minimal safe distance from the positions of the Croatian side --

8 MR. WEINER: Objection, Your Honour. Leading.

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I'll rephrase, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE PARKER: If you'd do that, Mr. Petrovic. I understand you

11 were trying to summarise, but I think you were slipping into some of your

12 own evidence.

13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Vilicic, what is the minimal safe distance between the

15 Old Town and the firing position of the Croatian side which would not

16 imperil the Old Town on the basis of the conclusions of your analysis?

17 A. The minimal distance of Croatian firing positions in relation to

18 the Old Town has to be 500 metres at minimum in order not to imperil the

19 Old Town.

20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vilicic. I think that we can now move on to firing

21 position VP-4.

22 A. The firing position VP-4 is Strincijera. Mortars of 82

23 millimetres. This mortar in this position are characteristic in terms of

24 the following: There were six 82-millimetre mortars there according to

25 the information provided by Zeljko Soldo specifically. And from that

1 firing position, we analysed the firing at the first objective, that is

2 C-4, of the Croatian mortar to the east of the Old Town 200 metres away,

3 that is.

4 Q. And what are the results that you obtained in terms of the

5 dispersion pattern?

6 A. On the following slide, what is depicted is the dispersion pattern

7 when there is abbreviated preparation, and also after the correction. It

8 can be seen that in the initial stage, there is a chance of having some

9 shells fall into the Old Town. However, once correction is carried out,

10 in normal conditions without any effect coming from the wind, projectiles

11 would fall outside the Old Town. Perhaps a projectile could hit Revelin

12 or rather Star Revelin, the fort of Revelin. On the next side, we see

13 what we have looked at until now as well, that is to say when the

14 projectile is exposed to a lateral wind or another wind, again projectiles

15 would fall into the Old Town to a very small degree, except the initial

16 stage. So that is C-4.

17 Q. All right. In relation to this firing position, could you show us

18 the appropriate page in the expert analysis where we can find the graphs

19 that pertain to this firing position.

20 A. Practically, we did not provide these diagrams in the analysis

21 here because our conclusion was that practically shells could not fall

22 into the Old Town when dealing with C-5.

23 Q. Mr. Vilicic, we are talking about VP-4 firing at C-4.

24 A. Oh, I beg your pardon. Please look at page 66 then and 67.

25 Q. So that's it?

1 A. Yes, page 66, figure 4.17. So we're talking about pages 66 and

2 67, figure 4.171 is on page 67. In view of the situation here, I did not

3 prepare slides for these particular pages, that is to say, pages 68 and 69

4 when the same target is engaged, but on the assumption that simple

5 preparation was carried out. First of all, again, it is a very small

6 number of projectiles that could perhaps hit Revelin in the stage of

7 preparation or rather correction. So that's why we did not show it. I'm

8 sorry about this slip of the tongue. C-5 appeared on my screen.

9 Q. Mr. Vilicic, I would now like to ask you to interpret firing from

10 VP-4 at C-5. If I'm not mistaken, that is in the second addendum attached

11 to your expert analysis.

12 A. Yes. These diagrams are at the very end in the annex, in annex

13 25, that is, in the addendum to the expert analysis. These are sketches

14 23, 23.1, and 23.21. On this diagram, we see that once fire correction

15 has been carried out in terms of targeting a weapon that is 100 metres to

16 the north of the Old Town, a considerable part of this central and

17 northern part of the town would be exposed to projectiles falling before

18 correction was carried out.

19 Afterwards, once correction is carried out, then this northern

20 part, so it would be the Broketa and St. Barbara towers, that is what

21 would be affected, that is to say to the north of the Stradun. Individual

22 shells could fall there in that case. Of course, now under the influence

23 of the wind, projectiles would fall further into the Old Town. And to the

24 west, this is a pattern that is the result of this, and that is shown on

25 figure 23.11. So we're talking about the yellow rectangle, and it would

1 move a bit to this side.

2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vilicic. I hope that this exhausts --

3 A. We show on the next slide what this looks like when it's enlarged,

4 so we see that it is to the north of Stradun. That is what is affected in

5 this area here.

6 Q. Thank you. Now that we've analysed all the relevant firing

7 positions from the JNA side and all the relevant targets, potential

8 targets, on the Croatian side, I would like to ask you to give a summary

9 conclusion. First of all, I would ask you what is the minimal distance or

10 minimal position if we're talking about Croatian positions, that ensures

11 the safety of the Old Town and that the Old Town would not be touched at

12 all? This is to say on the basis of the conclusions of your analysis?

13 A. As I have been saying showing you the results of potential

14 targeting of C-6 target, which we show to be at 500 metres north of the

15 Old Town, the first conclusion is that the distance of Croatian firing

16 positions, artillery positions, should have been not less than 500 metres

17 away from the Old Town. Any distance closer to the Old Town than that

18 would inevitably lead to certain projectiles falling within the Old Town

19 during counterbattery fire.

20 Q. Mr. Vilicic, may I ask you to focus on the following questions:

21 What is your total estimate of the effect of mortars from VP-3, VP-4, and

22 VP-5 firing positions in this part of your expert report?

23 A. In my expert report I gave a complete conclusion after analysing

24 all these options. I gave a conclusion on the effect of mortar fire from

25 VP-3, VP-4, and VP-5 firing positions if they would target C-3, C-4, and

1 C-5 situated around the Old Town of Dubrovnik.

2 My main conclusion based on the calculations performed and the

3 analysis, that the disposition of Croatian firing positions was such that

4 it led to a certain number of projectiles falling within the Old Town of

5 Dubrovnik. However, one must bear in mind that this was further

6 aggravated by an extremely bad meteorological situation on that 6th of

7 December, an extremely strong Bura wind --

8 MR. WEINER: I'd object, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

10 MR. WEINER: The counsel asked the witness the following

11 question: "What is your total estimate of the effect of mortars 3, 4, and

12 5 firing positions in this part of your expert report?" And he asked him

13 about the total number of shells falling into the Old Town. And now we're

14 talking about the weather, the Croatian positions. That's not answering

15 the question. If you look at the two questions --

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, I

17 would like to answer.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, if you want to ask different

19 questions, do that. But we will judge the relevance by the question. So

20 what is essentially happening at the moment is the witness is roaming over

21 a wide field of matters that aren't related to your questions. So if you

22 would be more specific in your questions, and the evidence will be more

23 controlled. Thank you.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you allow me to

25 state my opinion what this expert witness wishes to do is to give a

1 conclusion --

2 JUDGE PARKER: I've given you a ruling. I think you can proceed

3 to lead your relevant evidence. Yes.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Mr. Vilicic, just tell us where in your expert report can we find

6 the conclusions relating to the overall firing activity of VP-1, VP-3, and

7 VP-4 mortars?

8 A. In the English version on page 88, you can find conclusions on the

9 firing activity of mortars from VP-1, VP-3, and VP-4 positions, and their

10 effect on the Old Town.

11 Q. Thank you. Now I would like us to go over a certain number of

12 other questions that I have listed and that you as an expert are qualified

13 to answer. First of all, is it possible to use mortars mounted on

14 vehicles and under what conditions?

15 A. Yes. There are several solutions available in the world involving

16 the mounting of mortars on vehicles of medium capacity without particular

17 reconstruction of vehicles being necessary. It is necessary to use an

18 all-surface, four-wheel-drive vehicle. Such solutions exist in all

19 armies. We also had prototypes for such mounted mortars. Every mortar

20 can rather simply be mounted on a vehicle and fire. It is enough to put a

21 mortar on a base plate, and I have to tell this Honourable Court that I

22 was one of the team of the designers of the M-69A mortar. You put

23 sandbags and put a special base underneath that is designed so as to

24 disperse the burden to all sides. You can use charges 1, 2, 3 and fire

25 from this mortar without any problem.

1 In the specific case of Dubrovnik, the third charge in terms of

2 range is quite sufficient to target or rather to cover the firing lines

3 held by the JNA.

4 Q. Can you tell us briefly, is it possible to use mortars from a

5 concrete or stone surface?

6 A. The same applies as to vehicle-mounted mortars. Mortars can fire

7 from a concrete surface provided that it is prepared in the way that I

8 described. And one can also put it on specially prepared terrain. You

9 can put sandbags and arrange stones around, and then put the base plate on

10 the sandbags. And with smaller charges, you can use the mortar in that

11 way.

12 Q. Is it possible to fire with either artillery weapons or mortars

13 without aiming devices, without optical sights? That is my first

14 question. And if that is possible, what would be the precision of such

15 firing without aiming?

16 MR. WEINER: Objection, Your Honour. I don't think that's covered

17 in his report.

18 JUDGE PARKER: I don't know the answer to that, Mr. Weiner.

19 Mr. Petrovic, can you assist us. Is this set out in the report?

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the precision of

21 firing activity of both sides is covered in the report, the precision of

22 firing. The first next logical question is what the effect of absence or

23 presence of optical sights would be on the precision of using these

24 weapons. That issue has already been considered. Remember

25 Witness Negodic who testified that he had opened fire without aiming

1 devices. We now brought an expert artillery witness to clarify this

2 issue. If my learned friends will continue with this approach, we would

3 be totally unable to explore certain very important matters for our case.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner isn't suggesting it's not relevant,

5 Mr. Petrovic; he's suggesting that this is an expert witness. The Rules

6 provide for disclosure of their opinions to the other side before, and he

7 says that this matter is not the subject of disclosure.

8 MR. WEINER: Correct, Your Honour.

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was not disclosed

10 in this way, but I hope that elementary logic should have led my learned

11 friend to the conclusion that issues concerning artillery, the use of

12 artillery and artillery pieces is precisely the thing that we are going to

13 be discussing with this expert witness. We cannot emphasise every

14 sentence and every comma and disclose in advance that we are going to

15 discuss it. It is a formalist approach that is totally hamstringing us in

16 our work.

17 JUDGE PARKER: I don't think that observation is entirely

18 justified, Mr. Petrovic. It requires more care on your part. But let me

19 say to you that the Chamber's view is that this is a matter which is so

20 alive on the evidence that it would be of value to have the opinion on

21 this rather obvious issue so that despite the failure to comply with

22 disclosure, in the discretion of the Chamber you may lead.

23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I thank

24 you again, Your Honour.

25 Q. Mr. Vilicic, could you please answer this question that I just

1 asked.

2 A. Firing from mortars without aiming devices is impermissible

3 because after discharge of every shell, the mortar changes both direction

4 and elevation. The barrel changes both range and elevation which means if

5 we do not have a properly rectified aiming device which means that if you

6 look at a certain point in a distance and the barrel is trained in that

7 direction at that point, we cannot expect that the next projectile will

8 follow this same trajectory because with every discharge, the initial

9 angle will be the same due to the bounce. Without an aiming device, we

10 have a greater dispersion both in terms of range and deflection. If you

11 draw a mechanical line across the barrel, you will have a basic aiming

12 device, or you could possibly use a quadrant with an angle gauge. Without

13 using even that, there is no chance of precise aiming.

14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vilicic. Did you have an opportunity to read the

15 report of an artillery expert who testified earlier in this case as a

16 Prosecution witness?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Could you briefly in a couple of sentences tell us if you are

19 familiar with his conclusions and how you view the conclusions of the

20 Prosecution expert.

21 A. Yes, I did have this opportunity. I read it. I analysed it. And

22 I also had the opportunity of hearing the witness testifying in this

23 courtroom. First and foremost, he based his entire report on the probable

24 dispersions according to table values, which cannot be applicable in this

25 case. It cannot be precise. He did not take into account the mountainous

1 characteristics of the terrain where the actual firing took place. He did

2 not take into account the rear-sloping terrain. He did not take into

3 account the positions of the other side, some of which were as close as

4 100 metres from the Old Town.

5 His conclusions, in fact, the values he quotes in his report fall

6 about 50 per cent short of the actual values.

7 Q. Could you show us that.

8 A. It would be useful if I could use the overhead projector.

9 May I explain now?

10 Q. Yes, please go ahead.

11 A. In this first table, we considered the first case in the annex,

12 firing position of the Zarkovica mortar targeting the C-4 target near

13 Ploce. The Prosecution expert gave the following results for the third,

14 fourth, and fifth charges. He said they were semi-ellipses on the order

15 of magnitude of 112 by 80. According to all rules of the theory of

16 firing, because I also taught at the military academy, this expert witness

17 Poje Jozef also attended the academy and should have heard this, when

18 firing the primary weapon and in determining the initial firing data, the

19 pattern of dispersion has the following values: 667 by 536, not 112 by

20 80.

21 After correction of fire in using four pieces, the realistic

22 pattern of dispersion has the following values: 230 by 165. On average,

23 Mr. Poje presented to this Court results that fall about 51.3 per cent

24 short of the real actual dispersion.

25 Q. Please go on.

1 A. On the next slide, we see the next case considered by

2 Mr. Jozef Poje, that is when 120-millimetre mortars are targeting a target

3 north of the Old Town, near Ploce. You see that his ellipse of dispersion

4 is 280 by 152, whereas the realistic ellipse is 577 by 423. Again, his

5 pattern of dispersion is 51.5 per cent less than the real dispersion that

6 you get after performing the correction of firing in concentrated

7 targeting of the same target by a mortar platoon.

8 Q. Where can we find this in your expert report?

9 A. I did not attach that to my report. But when I came here, I

10 presented to you, and I hope that you made it known in advance that I

11 would also be analysing the results obtained by the Prosecution expert.

12 Q. These two tables that you just discussed --

13 A. They are in the documents. The first document provided by the

14 Prosecution to you on the 1st of April, that's the first document. And

15 the second is the annex submitted on the 15th of May 2004. Those are the

16 two documents that we analysed and that you made available to me.

17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vilicic. Just two more short questions:

18 Yesterday, we discussed the firing position VP-2, and you testified based

19 on the information that you had available and that were included as

20 evidence before this Honourable Chamber is that at this VP-2 position,

21 there were two 76-millimetre firing pieces, the so-called ZIS. My

22 question is when firing directly at Srdj from VP-2, from the ZIS

23 76-millimetre firing piece, is it possible that under such circumstances

24 when Srdj is targeted directly and probably missed, the projectile fired

25 from this particular weapon fall into the Old Town?

1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before the witness

2 replies to this question, I would like to distribute to this Honourable

3 Chamber two documents.

4 Q. Mr. Vilicic, could you please answer the question, if you can.

5 A. The VP-2 position in the Vrastica sector, there were three M-42

6 guns. You can see on the monitor the slide indicating the VP-2 firing

7 position in the Vrastica sector where three anti-armour 76-millimetre M-42

8 ZIS guns were. And the azimuth of firing direction showed on the slide

9 shows the Srdj fortress marked by C-1. It is clear from this slide that

10 this direction completely deviates by several tens degrees, or translated

11 into other measures, several hundred thousandths [as interpreted] parts

12 from the original direction.

13 On the next slide, you can see the trajectory of the projectile

14 76 millimetre which indicates the variation in the elevation of the

15 terrain, the Old Town is at approximately 4.750 metres, the Srdj is at

16 elevation 403, and the Vrastica firing position of the guns is at 390

17 metres elevation. The height of this curve, so if we are to link these

18 two dots, the difference between these two points is only 88 millimetres.

19 That means that this trajectory is extremely flat, but it corresponds to

20 this type of weapon, which is an anti-armour weapon intended for targeting

21 vehicles and bunkers. This trajectory corresponds exactly to the table

22 values which show that while firing at the Srdj fortress and under the

23 assumption that it had been missed, the projectile would continue to fly,

24 and it will fall at 5.5 kilometres from the firing position.

25 In other words, even if the Old Town had been at the same

1 direction with Srdj and from the previous slide we can clearly see the

2 difference between the direction leading to the flight of the projectile

3 over the Old Town, therefore the centre of the Old Town is 5.000 metres

4 from this point, and the projectile would fall at a distance of 5.400

5 metres. In other words, if they had fired at the Old Town itself by

6 targeting elements relevant for Srdj, the projectile would overshoot and

7 fall into the sea. So there is not even a theoretical change that whilst

8 targeting Srdj that the projectile would fall inside the Old Town.

9 Q. Thank you. Could you please just show us, because we were not

10 able to see this second sketch. Could you please explain to us what we

11 can see in that sketch.

12 A. This image or this drawing shows what I just explained, that they

13 had taken the wrong direction by using a derectified sight. The

14 projectile would fly over the Old Town and fall here, which is at 5.500

15 metres from this 76-millimetre gun. Presuming that they missed the Srdj

16 fortress by a couple of tens of metres and that it overshot the Srdj

17 fortress, then the projectile would miss the target, or rather miss the

18 Old Town by 1.500 metres to the west. Therefore, there is no chance that

19 while targeting the imperial fortress that any projectile would fall into

20 the Old Town that had been fired from the firing position at Vrastica.

21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vilicic. Could you please tell us, after reviewing

22 the video documents that you had at your disposal while compiling your

23 expert report, were you able to go through and see this video

24 documentation?

25 A. Yes. And in the expert analysis we dedicated a special chapter,

1 that is Chapter 8 on page 94 onwards, we analysed the results of the

2 initially supplied data referring to the damage inflicted inside the

3 Old Town of Dubrovnik.

4 Q. In the video material that you had reviewed, and by that I'm

5 referring to two video footage that are in the case file, which is P78 and

6 P145, from these videos, did you notice anything characteristic that would

7 be relevant to be presented to this Honourable Chamber?

8 A. I must say that while preparing for presenting the results

9 contained in my report, we very carefully viewed the videos provided by

10 the Tribunal, that is, the videotapes that we had received, the film

11 showed here which was shot by Mr. Jusic, and we also viewed the CD

12 recording made on the 8th of December while members of the Yugoslav Army

13 visited the site and established the level of damage inside the Old Town

14 of Dubrovnik. After carefully reviewing the first video made and

15 presented by Mr. Jusic in this Chamber --

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can we just have a

17 look at this particular piece of footage.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will first show you from this

21 video a segment of the videotape. Just a moment, please, if I may.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Could I indicate, Mr. Petrovic, it would be helpful

23 if we can know the point on the exhibit that this --

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's Exhibit P78

25 from the 19th minute and 17 seconds until 19 minutes and 28 seconds. And

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 then Exhibit P145, the 58th second.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the beginning of the

4 videotape marked V0002732 presented by Mr. Jusic in this Chamber.

5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Could you please just show the particular segment.

7 A. Now we are going to go to the 19th minute of this video. And from

8 the 19th minute and 14 seconds, this is the picture of Stradun. We can

9 see this dog running around. Then the camera goes to the left, and now I

10 will just rewind a little. I will show you this particular frame. You

11 can see this dog running away from Stradun. And now we have frozen the

12 frame here. Here, this is the St. Blaise's church. One projectile had

13 fallen here. It has pushed the debris backwards. And after analysing

14 this picture and based on our experience and knowledge, we concluded that

15 this projectile probably came from west, not from the east. So we have

16 taken out this frame and converted into another software package in order

17 to be able to freeze this frame and analyse it properly.

18 I apologise. I will just have to shift now to a different

19 software, Quicktime movie, so we can follow it. You can see it now on

20 your screens. So by shifting this slowly, I can move the image, so this

21 is the dog that I drew your attention to, the dog that is running. So the

22 camera is moving to the left. And now, here we come to this detail that I

23 said that we had analysed. And based on the fact that when a shell falls

24 under a certain angle, the impact wave and the explosion of the shell, the

25 part which is facing the ground, is affecting the ground and is pushing

1 the debris from the contact point, from the hole that the projectile had

2 made. And the contact wave that has a reverse effect, it scatters the

3 pieces of the shell that can fly around. And depending if they face or

4 come into any obstacle or perhaps persons, can cause damage. We also

5 notice, which we are going to see in another video, that this balcony,

6 balustrade had been damaged. This is the balcony in front of the church

7 and these columns here have been damaged.

8 So our conclusion was that the shell fell under such an angle that

9 creates an angle towards the western part, and that is a considerable

10 angle which makes it possible for these debris pieces to fly around and

11 that they, in fact, damaged these parts here.

12 Still, at the time, we were unable to definitively conclude

13 whether we were completely right or not. However, after we had viewed the

14 second video, at its very beginning --

15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are talking now

16 about the P145 exhibit.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's another video.

18 Q. Yes, I've just explained what we are discussing. Could you please

19 just continue.

20 A. You can see the damage here and the crater that was created here.

21 I'm sorry. We could not show -- well, I've stopped it here.

22 You see this crater. The material was thrown out towards the

23 back. You can see that it was filmed on the 8th of December 1991. We saw

24 now definitely that the projectile pierced the stone surface, damaged in a

25 semi-circular fashion this stone, and that these parts were thrown out

1 here. On this basis, we corroborated our assumption this projectile came

2 from the west; that is, from the west in relation to the Old Town and fell

3 here in front of the church of St. Blaise. This could not have been a

4 projectile that came from the east.

5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vilicic. Now, since we've dealt with this last

6 subject, I would like to ask you very briefly to give us the general

7 conclusion of your expert analysis, the one you did at the request of the

8 Defence of General Pavle Strugar.

9 A. I would just like to present to the Honourable Trial Chamber our

10 general conclusion now. In the English version, a broad conclusion is on

11 page 97. And the final conclusion is on page 99.

12 If you allow me, I would just like to say a few words. Our basic

13 conclusion, and everything that I've said so far points to the following:

14 First of all, that the distribution of firing positions of the Croatian

15 forces that were at distances that were less than 500 metres away from the

16 Old Town in terms of counterattacks, it imperilled the Old Town. On that

17 basis, we drew the conclusion that even without intentionally targeting

18 the Old Town, projectiles fall into it. In other words, the positions of

19 the Croatian forces led to the fact that a number of projectiles landed in

20 the Old Town.

21 I must say that firing positions of artillery pieces of the

22 Yugoslav People's Army that were in the area of Ledenice, mortars that

23 were 120-millimetre mortars, 82 millimetres at Strincijera, and the others

24 at the area of Dubac were at a relatively large distance. That is to say,

25 relatively within the range of these two firing positions, in terms of

1 their maximum range. Which obviously points to the fact that these

2 mortars were positioned against all the rules. Allow me to say this. I

3 was a colonel of the Yugoslav People's Army. I have been retired since

4 the 1st of January 1994. It is obvious there was a battalion there. A

5 battalion was at the location that corresponds to that of a battalion that

6 is on the defence. Since they were where they were, they were there to

7 give fire support in terms of defence, not in case of attack.

8 MR. WEINER: I would object to this, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

10 MR. WEINER: It is stated within his report, he makes similar

11 findings. However, this gentleman is here as a ballistician. He is not

12 here as a command and control expert. He is not here as a military

13 strategist. He's not here as a military tactical expert. This is outside

14 his area of expertise, and should not be allowed.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Vilicic, can we please focus on what your conclusion is, that

18 is to say on pages 97, 98, and 99 of your expert report.

19 A. I am sorry for digressing in that way, as Mr. Weiner said. I do

20 apologise --

21 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Mr. Weiner.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll go back to this now.

23 First of all, I spoke of the distribution of the firing forces of

24 the Croatian Army, and that is what imperilled the Old Town. Secondly,

25 poor weather conditions contributed to a larger number of shells falling

1 within the Old Town. As I've said, all firing positions regardless of

2 whether they are stationary or mobile that were at a distance that is less

3 than 500 metres from the Old Town imperil the Old Town of Dubrovnik. In

4 the analysis, we made calculations in terms of standard requirements;

5 namely, how many projectiles have to be fired in order to destroy C-3,

6 C-4, and C-5. This number of shells considerably exceeds, or rather it is

7 a couple of hundred shells. So on the basis of the calculations that we

8 made, and on the basis of the information that we had, namely, that the

9 mortars fired from a 120-millimetre mortar that had great destructive

10 effect, they fired up to one combat kit, that is to say up to 160 shells.

11 So our calculations showed that this number would have to have been much

12 larger if the intention was to destroy these targets. If that had been

13 the intention, so many shells would have fallen on the Old Town that it

14 practically would have been destroyed.

15 On the basis of all of this, our clear and unequivocal conclusion

16 is that on the basis of the complete analysis that we carried out, it

17 cannot be concluded that the Old Town of Dubrovnik was intentionally

18 targeted or fired at. Had this been the case, it would have practically

19 been destroyed as I've already said because the fall of projectiles and

20 the localities where damage was sustained in the Old Town clearly indicate

21 that the largest number of projectiles fell, and this is corroborated by

22 our analysis as well, in the southern part, that is to say to the south of

23 Stradun --

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Northern part.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] North of Stradun, and also to the

1 west. Whereas as far as the central, eastern and southern parts of

2 Stradun are concerned, there are only individual reports of damage which

3 clearly indicates that perhaps some projectiles could have done astray in

4 the situation that prevailed then in view of the weather conditions. That

5 would be our final conclusion, that is to say, of our expert analysis.

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your exhaustive and

7 detailed analysis.

8 Your Honour, this concludes the examination-in-chief of the expert

9 witness by the Defence. Your Honour, first of all, I would like to give

10 an explanation in view of the questions that you addressed to the Defence

11 yesterday by your leave.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. So

14 Mr. Vilicic and the team that worked with Mr. Vilicic, when working on

15 this expert analysis used material that was relevant and that was

16 accessible at the time when the expert analysis was compiled. This is an

17 analysis that is quite voluminous, very detailed, and very complex. At

18 the time when the main part of this analysis was done, the Prosecution

19 witness list included witnesses that you mentioned here yesterday,

20 Your Honour. That is the reason why some of the information was taken

21 from these sources as well. However, the Defence wishes to point out that

22 it is their position that they are quite aware of the fact that some of

23 these documents were not actually tendered into evidence in this case.

24 And therefore, we wish to point out that we espouse the same approach that

25 was adopted during the testimony of Jozef Poje, the Prosecution expert;

1 namely, that the expert findings of Mr. Vilicic and his associates are

2 relevant to the extent to which they correspond to the evidence existing

3 in this case.

4 The point of the analysis of Mr. Vilicic is confined to the

5 evidence in this case, Your Honours. The Defence, of course, is aware of

6 the fact that other facts that were resorted to and that are not in

7 evidence will not be taken into account. So dispersion tables in terms of

8 falls into the Old Town directly correspond to the evidence that was heard

9 by this Trial Chamber over these past seven or eight months, for as long

10 as the trial has been going on.

11 I hope that my explanation will suffice, and I believe that this

12 is what you had in mind when you addressed that question to us yesterday,

13 Your Honour.

14 Your Honour, may I also ask that the report of Dr. Vilicic, the

15 basic report in the English version, then the Serbian version, then the

16 annexes attached to the basic report that is, annex number II, then the

17 curriculum vitae of Mr. Vilicic, and two graphs that were used a few

18 minutes ago in this courtroom be admitted into evidence as Defence

19 exhibits.

20 MR. WEINER: Your Honour.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

22 MR. WEINER: Could I ask that these exhibits be held as ID

23 exhibits until the end of cross-examination.

24 JUDGE PARKER: I suppose that merely repeats what happened the

25 other way.

1 MR. WEINER: That's correct.

2 JUDGE PARKER: So we'll just hold it until the end of

3 cross-examination, Mr. Petrovic. We'll see what emerges.

4 But do I take it you would also be wanting to tender the two

5 diagrams? Did I miss that, sorry? I was distracted by --

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Yes.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you.

9 JUDGE PARKER: I think we will simply not mark them at all at the

10 moment. We will wait and hear the cross-examination, and if I should

11 forget, if you could be alert to remind me the question of admission at

12 the end.

13 MR. WEINER: In fact, you could admit those two documents. I have

14 no objection to those, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE PARKER: I think it would be nice to put them all together

16 in one group, the exhibits, if they become that. So we'll hold them all.

17 Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic, and particularly for the

18 timeliness of your dealing with this evidence.

19 It's obviously a convenient time now to have the first break. And

20 we'll resume at 25 past 11.00.

21 --- Recess taken at 11.05 a.m.

22 --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

24 Cross-examined by Mr. Weiner:

25 Q. Good morning, Dr. Vilicic.

1 A. Good morning.

2 Q. Dr. Vilicic, towards the end of your testimony or end of your

3 testimony, you discussed a crater in front of the St. Blaise's church in

4 the Old Town. Correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And in the two videos, the two segments from the two videos, we

7 saw that crater.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And if we look at that crater facing St. Blaise's church, we see a

10 hole, and then some raised tiles, and then the church. Isn't that

11 correct? I'm asking you the question. I can show you the video later. I

12 can show it from here.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So we see the hole first, then the raised tiles, and then the

15 church. Isn't that correct, sir?

16 A. That's right.

17 Q. So that means based on your statement -- I'm sorry, the proofing

18 notes, that the projectile was flying towards St. Blaise's church. Isn't

19 that correct? Because you said there is the hole first, and then the

20 raised tiles. The projectile goes down, causes the hole, and then raises

21 the tiles. So the direction that the projectile is flying is in the

22 direction of St. Blaise's church. Isn't that correct, sir?

23 A. That does not have to mean that that's the direction. It fell in

24 the direction that is in the vicinity of St. Blaise's church. It is not

25 to say that it aimed at St. Blaise's church.

1 Q. No, I'm not saying it aimed at St. Blaise's church. But from the

2 hole and the raised tiles, it was heading towards St. Blaise's church. We

3 agree upon that, don't we, sir? Isn't that correct?

4 A. Precisely speaking, it fell in the vicinity of the church of

5 St. Blaise.

6 Q. I understand that. But what I'm saying is the direction it was

7 coming from, I'm not saying they targeted St. Blaise's church. But the

8 direction it was coming from was towards St. Blaise's church. We agree

9 upon that, don't we, sir?

10 A. Generally speaking, the direction goes by the church of

11 St. Blaise, if we want to be specific. Since the projectile fell in the

12 immediate vicinity of the church, as it flew, the trajectory of the

13 projectile rather, went by the church of St. Blaise. If we were to put a

14 vertical surface this way, and if we look at the trajectory of the

15 projectile, then this was -- the plane was next to the church of

16 St. Blaise, this imaginary plane.

17 Q. Sir, I have a piece of paper in my hand. Actually, this will be

18 St. Blaise's church, this computer screen. The raised tiles are in front.

19 Then the hole. So the projectile has to be coming this way towards the

20 direction of St. Blaise's church. Isn't that correct?

21 A. No. The projectile came from there, from there. If this is

22 St. Blaise's church, the plane through which the trajectory went goes like

23 this. This is the church. It's exactly this way --

24 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... where the --

25 A. This way. This way. It went this way.

1 Q. Sir, if you --

2 JUDGE PARKER: The record should record that the trajectory

3 indicated by the witness is one roughly parallel to the front face of

4 St. Blaise's church, as I saw it.

5 MR. WEINER:

6 Q. Sir, you indicated that the fact that the hole was in the rear in

7 this statement, the discovery that we received, sir, the fact -- you

8 indicated the fact that the tiles are in the front, and the hole is in the

9 back meant that it came from the back to the front. That's what your

10 attorneys gave to us. Are you changing your opinion now? Are you

11 changing the discovery that was supplied by your attorneys? You used east

12 and west, but you indicated that the fact that the tiles were raised, you

13 indicated that the projectile came towards the raised tiles. Isn't that

14 correct? That's what this discovery says here. Are you changing that

15 now?

16 A. I'm not changing my opinion. Please, let me quite precise. The

17 hole -- I mean, in relation to the hole, the bricks or tiles are raised on

18 the eastern side, and the projectile came from the western side.

19 Q. Sir, all I want you to do is -- the hole is in front. I know, but

20 sir, without -- the hole is in front. There's a hole in front, a U-shaped

21 hole which you called west.

22 Okay. You said -- that's okay. Listen to my question first. You

23 said without talking about east or west, you said that the tiles are

24 raised. That means because the tiles are raised, the projectile came

25 towards the raised tiles. Isn't that correct? Without talking east and

1 west, in the discovery you indicated -- that's correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So the fact that the tiles are raised means the projectile came

4 towards the tiles. Since you've just said we have the church here, then

5 the raised tiles, and then the holes in front of it, the projectile has to

6 go towards -- in the direction of the church because you just said the

7 projectile goes towards the raised tiles.

8 A. Well, that depends on interpretation. I said precisely that the

9 plane through which the projectile flew practically passes by the church.

10 And I even drew it --

11 Q. Sir, sir, you just indicated to me three times we said you have

12 the church, the raised tiles in front of the church, and then the hole in

13 front of the raised tiles. And I just asked you if the projectile runs

14 towards the raised tiles. And you said yes. Now, I'd like to show you

15 Exhibit P13.

16 Would you look at that, please. Sir, could P13 be placed on the

17 ELMO. Sir, can you just show us where the north, southeast, and west is.

18 Or let me take you through it. The witnesses so far has indicated the

19 east is the harbour area. Isn't that correct? Correct, the east is the

20 harbour, sir?

21 A. This is the east. And over here is west. North is up. South is

22 down. Strictly speaking, there is a certain angle if you want to be

23 precise. There is a certain inclination.

24 Q. South is down. Now, do you see the number 13 there, St. Blaise's

25 church?

1 A. Correct. And the projectile fell --

2 Q. Sir, sir, listen to me. You indicated in front of the church

3 there were raised tiles, then the hole. And that the projectile came

4 towards the raised tiles. Therefore, the projectile had to have come

5 north to south. Isn't that correct?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Sir, you stated a few moments ago the projectile went through the

8 raised tiles, went towards the raised tiles. The raised tiles are

9 directly in front of number 13. So if the projectile is going in the

10 direction of the church, that's going from north to south. Let's face it.

11 A. No. No. That's a completely incorrect interpretation. If I can

12 show you on this screen, look at the slabs. The stone slabs located in

13 the Luza square are oriented south-north. And the spheric thing on the

14 other picture --

15 Q. Let's go to the picture. First let's go if we could to see an

16 overview from the back angle. P145, please, at 58 seconds.

17 A. May I start the footage.

18 Q. No, we'll do it on our end, sir.

19 A. You will.

20 Q. Yes. 58 seconds, please. Right there. We see the hole in front.

21 We're -- our backs are to the church. We see the stones that have been

22 raised, and then we see the hole. Isn't that correct? Isn't that

23 correct, sir?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. Okay, now could we go to the other angle. Could we go to -- just

1 a second.

2 A. Please, look at the direction of the slabs. The spheric --

3 Q. One moment, sir. P78, please, we'll look at it right from the

4 front view in front of the church at 19, 25 seconds. Right after the dog.

5 Hold on. Hold on. Actually, could we go back for a second.

6 We're facing up the Stradun towards the west at this point.

7 Correct?

8 Now, we're going to turn south. Let's turn south. Can we

9 continue south. Keep on going to 25 seconds. A little more, please.

10 Little more. Stop.

11 What we have in front of the church, we're facing south now. We

12 have the hole and the raised stones. And you indicated the projectile

13 would move towards the raised stones. Therefore, the projectile is facing

14 south.

15 A. It's not correct. Please, you are interpreting this completely

16 inaccurately. Look at how the slabs are located. Look at this material

17 thrown backwards. Now, look at the previous film, and you will see that

18 from the hole, the debris goes into the normal direction south-north. You

19 are claiming it is south-north because I said it was east-west because the

20 discharged -- the propelled material was thrown west. The slabs are

21 oriented --

22 Q. The material is thrown west. So if didn't come north to south, if

23 the materials are thrown west. So therefore it came from the east, so

24 either it came from the JNA in the north or it came from the JNA in the

25 east. Isn't that correct, sir?

1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the complete answer is

3 not on the record. The answer the witness gave concerning the orientation

4 of the slabs did not go into the record in its entirety. It is in the

5 21st line of page 37. I'm just asking that the witness be allowed to

6 complete his answer concerning the orientation of the slabs.

7 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, he wasn't responding to my questions.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Very shortly, I think we will reach the point where

9 you will allow him to give his explanation as to why he sees it

10 differently than you.

11 MR. WEINER: He did, but he said it was --

12 JUDGE PARKER: I'm letting you put your proposition so far. But

13 clearly, there is a difference between you, and it will have to emerge

14 soon.

15 MR. WEINER:

16 Q. Sir, you've testified five times, I believe, now there's a hole,

17 there are raised tiles, and then there's the church. Correct? Correct,

18 sir?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And you testified now twice that the projectile moved towards the

21 raised tiles.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So that's now three times. So if the projectile moved towards the

24 raised tiles, it is moving towards the church. Correct?

25 A. Parallel with the church, if you insist. You keep trying to tell

1 me that it was going towards the church. If it was heading directly

2 towards the church, the hole would be in front of the church, not next to

3 it. I think I will have to start speaking English so we can understand

4 each other without mediation.

5 Q. If it's moving towards the church or in the direction or towards

6 the angle to the side of the church, it's moving south. Isn't that

7 correct? Because you're facing south if you're facing the church. That's

8 correct, isn't it? If you're facing the church, you're facing south?

9 A. Sir, you persistently keep trying -- yes, it's correct. Allow me

10 to tell you, south-north is the layout of the slabs on the Luza square.

11 They are perpendicular to the church. That's the direction in which the

12 slabs are laid. And the orientation of the slabs is north-south. And I

13 said the projectile came perpendicular to the direction of the slabs,

14 which is east-west, that is, west-east. The raised slabs relative to the

15 hole are on the east, whereas the thrown-out material faces west. And

16 based on this thrown-out debris, I said the projectile came from east to

17 west. The orientation -- the orientation of this hole, and you can see it

18 on film 25.53 - I don't know it by heart - you can see that there is a

19 spheric hole, a crater, and it is oriented towards the west. It is on the

20 west side. And the raised tiles are on the east side. If we take that

21 the centre of orientation is the centre of the hole.

22 Q. Sir, if the centre of the hole is the centre of orientation and

23 the slabs are behind the hole as you've now testified six - this is

24 now - you're nodding - seven times - then the slabs are on the south side.

25 You've got your north, west, east, and south. So the slabs are on the

1 south side. Correct? Not on the west or not on the east.

2 A. You keep trying to prove that the projectile came from the north.

3 And I'm telling you based on the orientation of the slabs, which is

4 north-south, the projectile came from the west. And if we take the centre

5 of the hole as a reference point, north is on this side, as we can see on

6 the screen, it is facing you. South is away from you. Right is west, and

7 left is east. And if we face north, of course to my right would be east

8 and my left would be west. And if we look at it on the drawing, I am

9 looking from the north towards the south, and I'm seeing the church. And

10 clearly, west is on the right. From the right, that is, from the west,

11 the projectile came flying eastward and came close to the church. And we

12 can clearly see on this second film from the orientation of the slabs that

13 the crater was created from the west to the east. And the material was

14 propelled, thrown out towards the east.

15 Q. Sir, if the material was propelled to the east, it would be on

16 this side, to your left.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's a problem of

18 interpretation. Page 40, line 12, the last word is not the one recorded.

19 I would like that clarified, please.

20 JUDGE PARKER: East. Is that the word?

21 MR. WEINER:

22 Q. If we're facing south, you see all the materials to the right of

23 the hole. That's to the west, sir.

24 A. Yes, yes, correct.

25 Q. So all thrown --

1 A. West, west --

2 Q. -- to the west.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was just a

4 misinterpretation.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said several times the time

6 material was thrown out towards the west. I said the first time and I'm

7 repeating for the umpteenth time the material was thrown out to the west

8 and the slabs are raised on the east side of the hole.

9 MR. WEINER:

10 Q. Sir, if the hole is in front of us and the slabs are behind the

11 hole as you said seven times now I believe, the slabs are on the south

12 side. Do you want to maintain it's on the west, sir? If you have the

13 hole, you have the slabs, and then you're having the church. We're facing

14 the church. The slabs are in front of the church. The slabs have to be

15 on the south.

16 A. Please, look at the film that you have just shown, and you will

17 see. Start earlier. Start when the camera is shooting the balustrade of

18 the church moving right and showing the hole. If you look at the hole

19 where you see the wreath, you can see clearly that the slabs are facing

20 north-south, and the curve of the hole is looking west. And on that

21 detail, you can see that they are on the west.

22 Q. So if the slabs are on the south -- let's say even slightly angled

23 to the southwest, that means - you indicated the projectile was moving

24 towards the slabs, the raised tiles I mean, when I say slabs - it has to

25 be coming from the northeast. That's common sense, sir.

1 A. Northeast. I cannot understand how it could have come from

2 northeast when the material was propelled westward. You are losing sight

3 of the fact that a mortar shell, when it falls, when it lands, throws

4 material backwards. Why? Because the impact wave hits the ground,

5 bounces and throws all the material backwards. Whereas the other one,

6 because it is at an inclination, throws out additional pieces; in this

7 case, towards the church.

8 Why is there absolutely no material on this side? Can you explain

9 it to yourself? Why don't you see east of the hole any material, any

10 debris? Because the impact wave discharged material on one side, and then

11 didn't discharge any material on the other because it simply rushed.

12 Q. If you notice 58 and this one, the two exhibits are slightly

13 different. Were you there on December 6th, sir, in front of the

14 St. Blaise's church? No.

15 A. Clearly not.

16 Q. You weren't there on December 7th.

17 A. But I've seen the film.

18 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ...

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. And you don't know if anyone moved any of those bricks, if anyone

21 moved any of that rubble, if anyone swept it towards a pile, swept it away

22 from the church? You don't know that, do you, sir, because you weren't

23 there? Correct?

24 A. No, but one can see clearly in second 58 that nobody had shifted

25 anything, that everything was lying exactly as on the previous film.

1 Q. Sir, before 58 was taken, you weren't there either and you don't

2 know if anyone moved anything, do you? Isn't that correct?

3 A. To tell you the truth, I don't understand your question. If you

4 said that I wasn't there either on the 5th, the 6th, or the 7th, but it is

5 clear when you look at the film --

6 Q. Sir, sir, that's not my question.

7 A. -- when you see the hole --

8 Q. Sir, all I'm saying is you weren't there on the 6th or the 7th, so

9 you don't know if anyone tampered with the hole, if anyone cleaned the

10 area, if anyone kicked some of those stones into the hole or just kicked

11 them towards the hole, you don't know any of that because you weren't

12 there. Isn't that correct?

13 A. You know, to me, as an expert who made an analysis of both these

14 video films, I can only confirm that I wasn't there. But you cannot

15 convince me that these slabs could have been moved --

16 Q. Sir, the question -- okay, that's fine. The rubble -- you don't

17 know if anyone moved it. You just don't know because you weren't there.

18 A. From the film, I see that nobody moved them because it's lying

19 exactly as in the other film. There is an absolute similarity between

20 25.53 and the film of Djelo Jusic. The similarity is such that --

21 Q. Sir, you went there before Djelo Jusic's film was taken? Sir, you

22 were not there prior to Jusic's film taken, were you?

23 A. That is true, that I wasn't there in the region.

24 Q. And that was taken the day after, the day after the impact.

25 Correct?

1 A. Yes. Yes. On the film --

2 Q. And you don't know if anyone tampered with that between December

3 6th and December 7th, do you?

4 A. No -- yes, yes. Yes, it's true that I don't know.

5 Q. Sir, are you the same Dr. Vilicic who testified in the Galic case?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And were you the same Dr. Vilicic who was questioned by Judge Orie

8 about taking a photograph and changing it, turning it 180 degrees so it

9 would then fit your conclusions because the regular view of the photograph

10 did not fit your conclusions? Are you that same Dr. Vilicic? And it's

11 also listed in a footnote in the Galic decision that you manipulated a

12 piece of evidence? Are you that same Dr. Vilicic?

13 A. That is not true. And Honourable Judge Orie, the transcript

14 actually shows quite the opposite of what you're saying. The transcript

15 says precisely that the photograph used there has no influence on the

16 conclusion that the shell had come from the northern direction. And it

17 was pure manipulation with that picture that had been placed there without

18 any intention to prove the opposite of what was said in the Prosecution

19 material. I think it's absolutely ridiculous. The transcript clearly

20 shows that I confirmed that this photograph has no impact on the thesis

21 provided me by the Tribunal, the allegation made. The Tribunal has no

22 impact on the conclusion concerning the direction of the shell. And I can

23 say that this interpretation of yours that I manipulated everything in

24 order to corroborate my conclusion is totally groundless. And you can see

25 that the conclusion is not changed one bit.

1 Q. Sir, let me read -- would you like me to read two pages from the

2 transcript of the Galic trial? Pages 20.364 and 20.365.

3 Question, Judge Orie: "Dr. Vilicic, the question is the

4 following: If you turn a photograph 180 degrees because it becomes more

5 logic with one version of the event, that takes away for anyone who reads

6 the report the opportunity to notice such an inconsistency or such an

7 illogical difference between the photograph and the version of the event.

8 The question now is that you should do that on your own without telling

9 those who read the report that you did it and why you did it and whether

10 this would not be improper to do, even if you might have done it with the

11 best intentions."

12 Answer: "Well, this change, in my opinion, doesn't change

13 anything in regard to the conclusions about the place where the projectile

14 exploded and the altitude, the elevation. It doesn't change the direction

15 from which the projectile came."

16 Judge Orie: "Say the photograph is illogical in view of the

17 version given to you of the event would it not have been proper to draw

18 the attention to this illogic rather than turning the photograph for 180

19 degrees to adapt to the version of the event -- of the version that was

20 presented to you. It might have been important to this Chamber, for

21 example, not to believe one version that appears in not your report but in

22 other reports."

23 Answer: "When you have the negative of a photograph" - I'm on

24 page now 20.354 - "you can print it in both ways.

25 Judge Orie: "The Chamber is aware of that."

1 And then you said: "Our intention was not by any means to change

2 the meaning, but just to make sure that the description corresponds to the

3 position of the vehicle. It's stated that the vehicle was in front of the

4 evidence, and Zorka Simic was standing in front of the entrance. The

5 projectile hit her, it exploded and caused damage, deformation, and given

6 the position of the street where the vehicle was, this photograph

7 corresponds to the situation."

8 And now the final question from Judge Orie: "You turn the

9 photograph for 180 degrees because you thought that it would fit better

10 into what you read about the cause of events. Is that true?"

11 Witness, answer: "Yes, that's true."

12 So, sir, you've previously manipulated a photograph so it would

13 fit your version of the events. Isn't that true, as you told Judge Orie?

14 A. No. No, that's not true. It's not true because the photograph

15 was placed at an angle of the drawing where the direction of the flight of

16 the projectile was clearly indicated. That direction was important. And

17 that photograph that was placed there by mistake in that way, it was a

18 genuine error. When you look at the vehicle in that drawing, the vehicle

19 is exactly placed where its location was, the projectile hit directly in

20 front of that location, hit that Zorka Simic, the poor woman, and another

21 person who died, and the conclusion of that analysis says clearly the

22 projectile came from the west, and it is not changed in the least relative

23 to the evidence provided earlier.

24 It is only my mistake because I'm not a photographer that I

25 omitted to mention that I turned that photograph and that I didn't

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 indicate that I did not use it as a basic element for my analysis. The

2 conclusion is based on the direction of the projectile. I could even say

3 that it is more of a manipulation to say that I manipulated the evidence.

4 You could claim something like that if I had opposed the conclusion based

5 on the previous evidence provided by the Prosecution.

6 Q. Sir, when questioned by Judge Orie, you turned the photograph 180

7 degrees because you thought that would fit better into what you had read

8 about the cause of the events. Is that true? And your answer is, "Yes,

9 that's true." You didn't say "I made a mistake. I did it accidentally."

10 You said, that's true. You intentionally turned the photograph. Isn't

11 that correct?

12 A. That photograph was turned by mistake, and I said to Judge Orie on

13 that occasion, and I said to everyone, that in practice nothing was

14 changed. If I didn't change the data given me by the Prosecution, based

15 on this or that photograph, I cannot understand how anyone can make the

16 conclusion that that photograph was used to make an erroneous conclusion.

17 It was clearly indicated that the projectile came from the west, just as

18 the Prosecution material indicated.

19 Where is the manipulation? You are now trying to challenge my

20 expert report on this event and this hole, this crater, because you did

21 not manage to convince me that it came from north-south. You are now

22 trying to use this to prove that I am manipulating evidence. That is

23 practically what you want. You want to practically discredit me as an

24 expert witness based on your ignorance of this material.

25 Q. The record speaks for itself. And you can also look at the Galic

1 decision, and I can get the Court the footnote where they talk about the

2 change of the photograph.

3 Let us move on, sir.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Just before you do, Mr. Weiner, we didn't deal

5 satisfactorily with page 40, line 12, the last word. I just note it so

6 that it's not forgotten that the last word as shown in the transcript is

7 "east." Mr. Petrovic says that was not the direction given by the witness

8 in his evidence. I felt we ought to just record that so it's not lost and

9 forgotten. We can now move on.

10 MR. WEINER: Thank you.

11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

12 MR. WEINER:

13 Q. Now, sir, you concluded in your report, sir, that on December 6th,

14 JNA mortar shells landed in the Old Town. Isn't that correct? Without

15 getting into the issue of whether they were intentional or unintentional,

16 the JNA mortar shells did in fact land within the walls of the Old Town?

17 A. [In English] Sorry, I must -- [Interpretation] Interpreter, you

18 didn't interpret this properly. [In English] Mortar shells? More shells

19 than only one shell?

20 Q. Yes, JNA mortar shells. You indicated over 100 --

21 A. Because translation was only one projectile.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 A. [Interpretation] Yes, it is correct. I mean, in the analysis we

24 analysed the fall of individual projectiles, shells into the Old Town.

25 Q. And you indicated in your report that it was 82- and

1 120-millimetre shells fired by JNA mortars that landed in the Old Town on

2 December 6th.

3 A. Yes, on the basis of the effects of what happened at the objective

4 and knowing what the effect of 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre mortars

5 is, we concluded that these were 82- and 120-millimetre shells, yes.

6 Q. You indicated in your report that the shelling -- and actually

7 today and yesterday in your testimony, that the shelling of the Old Town

8 by the JNA came from three locations, Ledenice, Rajcevic, and Strincijera.

9 Isn't that correct?

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I object to the content of the

13 question. As this question was put, it is not contained in the evidence

14 of this witness. Could my colleague please be very precise in terms of

15 what was said here. [In English] Shelling of the Old Town, for example,

16 that...

17 THE WITNESS: Shelling of the Old Town.

18 MR. WEINER: All right. We'll do it a little different.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

20 MR. WEINER:

21 Q. Sir, you indicated that on December 6th, JNA mortar shells fell in

22 the Old Town as a result of mortar fire from three JNA locations, mortars

23 at Ledenice, Rajcevic, and Strincijera. Isn't that correct?

24 A. Yes. That's what I said, from those directions when C-3, C-4, and

25 C-5 were fired at, individual shells did fall into the Old Town. Yes.

1 Q. I didn't ask you about C-3, C-4, and C-5. I just ask you that you

2 please just answer the questions that you're asked.

3 Now, based on your analysis of the tapes and your analysis of the

4 evidence and witness statements, you indicated -- or you're aware, sir,

5 that as a result of those shells falling in the Old Town fired by JNA

6 mortars, a great deal of damage was caused. Isn't that correct?

7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] As for the damage, there is no

10 mention of it in the report. For five months, we listened to damage and

11 what kind of damage this was. But that is not the subject that this

12 report deals with.

13 JUDGE PARKER: The question is going on to put this issue of

14 damage to the witness, as I understand it.

15 MR. WEINER: That's clear.

16 JUDGE PARKER: So that's --

17 MR. WEINER: That's correct.

18 JUDGE PARKER: -- proper cross-examination.

19 MR. WEINER:

20 Q. Do you agree, sir, that as a result of JNA mortars firing shells

21 which landed in the Old Town, a great deal of damage was caused? Do you

22 agree with that, sir, on December 6th?

23 A. I cannot fully agree because I did not analyse the quality, if I

24 can put it that way, of the damage or the degree of damage. I can only

25 say that mortar shells, that on the 6th of December, fell into the

1 Old Town could have led to damage. What level of damage, that is

2 something I did not analyse. But it is certain that they did lead to

3 damage. Greater or lesser damage, depending on the projectile involved

4 and the place where it landed. It is one thing if the projectile hit a

5 roof, and it's a different thing if it hit a concrete slab either on a

6 terrace or on the Stradun or a street in the Old Town.

7 Q. Sir, you reviewed approximately six videos, didn't you?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And in each of those six videos, they depict a great deal of

10 damage. Isn't that correct, sir?

11 A. Damaged buildings were shown, but I keep telling you, I cannot

12 talk to you about this because I did not analyse the level of damage. I

13 can tell you what I observed visually. I observed buildings that were

14 damaged or in flames; the hotel was called the Royal or the Imperial, I

15 can't remember exactly. What I paid attention to more was the smoke

16 because on the basis of smoke one can locate where the shell fell, or if

17 it fell at all. And I was watching this in order to see how many

18 projectiles could have fallen on the Old Town. And if you look at our

19 expert report and if you look at the section that has to do with the

20 analysis of hits in the Old Town, it says --

21 Q. Sir, sir, you're not answering the question, sir. By the way, in

22 your report, you include the maps from the Croatian analysis of the

23 damage, and you discuss that, too, in your report on or about pages 94,

24 and you have the maps on 94A and B in your report. Isn't that correct,

25 sir? 94B, the Croatian damage report, pages 94, 95, discussion of the

1 damage, 94A, page 94, you discuss damage, the levels of damage. You even

2 used the Croatian analysis levels 1, 2, 3, and 4. Isn't that correct?

3 Isn't that in your report, sir? That's in the English, pages 94 on.

4 A. I have the English version. And this part was taken out of my

5 analysis. However, regardless of that, if we look at page 94, the 450

6 items we analysed, we analysed only 1 and 2; that is to say, those 95

7 approximately, 95 damages. So on page --

8 Q. Sir, my question is, does it --

9 A. [No Interpretation]

10 Q. My question is: Is this in your report? That's all. This

11 section taken from the Croatian analysis, damage analysis. So you have

12 reviewed the damage to the Old Town. Isn't that correct? It's right in

13 your report, page 94, 94A, page 94B, page 95. And then you have

14 conclusion analysis of damage caused to features within the walls of the

15 Old Town on page 95. So you do consider or review the damage in your

16 report.

17 A. Yes. But from the aspect of the effect of the projectile, not the

18 degree of damage sustained by the building itself. That is where we do

19 not understand each other.

20 Q. I'm just asking you if you realise that there was a great deal of

21 damage in the Old Town. That's all. And you do discuss it, and you show

22 the Croatian maps indicating there was a great deal of damage. That's in

23 your report. Isn't it?

24 A. In the Croatian map -- I mean, in the final version, I don't see

25 how come you have this. In the final version of the expert opinion, we

1 did not include this map precisely so it would not lead to this kind of

2 confusion as we have now. Because our analysis of the damage, as I've

3 said to you, was made from the aspect of the type of projectiles that

4 could have fallen. And if you look at the conclusion, you can see that we

5 say that out of a total of 27 projectiles of 120 and 79 and 82

6 millimetres, there could have been a certain number of damage, and then

7 also the navy ones that are on ships in view of their trajectory, they

8 could not target roofs in the Old Town, and they could not cause damage on

9 roofs in the Old Town.

10 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I would like to just check with the

11 Court. Does the Court have these pages or is it just mine?

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is an integral

13 part of the report as it is presented. There is no dispute about that.

14 There is no misunderstanding. What you are showing is an integral part of

15 the report, and the witness has it in front of him, the expert witness has

16 it in front of him.

17 MR. WEINER:

18 Q. Now, sir, having reviewed the videos, having looked at the

19 analysis done by the Croatian architects, having reviewed the UN expert

20 commission report, you're aware that as a result of the shelling on

21 December 6th by the JNA, that some buildings were damaged. You're aware

22 of that, aren't you?

23 A. I'm aware of the fact that some buildings were damaged, but I do

24 not agree with you. Our conclusion is not that the JNA shelled, because

25 shelling is one thing, and the individual fall of certain projectiles as

1 an effect of everything that I presented in the expert opinion is another

2 thing. So you cannot conclude what I did not conclude.

3 Q. We're using different terms. As a result of shells from JNA

4 mortars falling in the Old Town, buildings were damaged. Isn't that

5 correct? Yes or no.

6 A. That is correct. And I fully agree with that statement.

7 Q. And further, as a result of those shells from JNA mortars on

8 December 6th, roofs were damaged, either holes in a roof or a whole roof

9 just collapsed. Isn't that correct?

10 A. In the pictures I did not see that an entire roof had fallen, but

11 I did see some damage, circle-shaped, that are the effect of the fall of a

12 mortar shell. It looks like that. Not in any picture did I see a

13 complete roof that had fallen.

14 Q. Okay. Because in your report on page 90 in the English, you

15 state, under tape number 3, "What is characteristic is the large-scale

16 caving in of roofs on old buildings because of the action of mortar

17 shells." That's under tape 3, the first, second, third -- fourth full

18 paragraph. So you said: "Large-scale caving in of roofs on old

19 buildings." So is that what you saw, large-scale caving in of roofs on

20 old buildings?

21 A. Could you please tell me where this is in the English version.

22 Q. Sure. Sir, on page 90, there is tape 2, and then there's tape 3,

23 which is number 0062, and then it's the first paragraph, and then the

24 second paragraph begins: "The recordings relate to damage..." The third

25 paragraph begins: "Damage caused by mortar shells to the pavement in the

1 Stradun..." And then the fourth full paragraph says: "What is

2 characteristic is the large-scale caving of roofs on old buildings because

3 of the action of mortar shells."

4 So you saw large-scale caving in of roofs. Correct, sir?

5 A. Yes, yes, yes, correct. As a result of the fact that on the old

6 roof, due to what the projectile did, there was this caving in because the

7 beams were rotten. As far as I know, before these events, a list of

8 buildings was compiled, buildings that had roofs that were dilapidated and

9 very old and that could have collapsed anyway.

10 Q. Okay. And you're also aware that as a result of shells falling

11 into the Old Town fired by JNA mortars you indicated that religious

12 buildings, you're aware that religious buildings were damaged. Isn't that

13 correct?

14 A. Yes. But since you insist on damage, even Grbic stated before

15 this Court in contrast to what was said here that the Orthodox church was

16 damaged very little. On the basis of this information that we're

17 discussing here, according to the list of damage, it seems that the

18 Orthodox church had sustained all four levels of damage. Mr. Grbic, who

19 knows Dubrovnik very well and who lives there, stated before this

20 Honourable Trial Chamber that the Orthodox church had sustained very

21 little damage. To tell you the truth, from that moment, we did not even

22 look at this from the point of view of the level or degree of damage. We

23 gave a description, if I can put it that way, of how the projectile could

24 have done whatever was done, everything that I've mentioned several times,

25 120-millimetre, 79-, 82-millimetre shells.

1 Q. Your answer was yes, you were aware that or you had seen on the

2 video religious buildings were damaged. And you also have to be aware

3 that cultural buildings --

4 A. Yes, yes, yes, correct.

5 Q. Okay. And are you aware that from listening in on some of the

6 evidence that local residents, civilians, were injured --

7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I really think that this line of

10 cross-examination goes completely beyond the content of this expert

11 report. The man was not in Dubrovnik, and he doesn't know anything about

12 this. He is an expert in ballistics. He's an artillery man. That's what

13 we're talking about, not about cultural monuments, not about civilians.

14 That is outside his evidence. And also, he does not have any experience

15 with Dubrovnik on the 6th of December 1991. I kindly ask my colleague to

16 put questions in relation to the subject of the analysis, and that is

17 sublimed in the conclusion of the analysis. So religious buildings,

18 cultural monuments are things that the Honourable Trial Chamber has

19 sufficient evidence about, and they can certainly draw conclusions on that

20 basis. This has nothing to do with the very essence of this expert

21 analysis. So could my learned friend please focus on what the essence of

22 the matter is. Thank you, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

24 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, this is very relevant evidence. This

25 witness has indicated that other than one shell, which we're disputing, it

1 was the JNA whose shells landed in the Old Town. And I want to just go

2 through the damage that they caused because what he further states in his

3 document is that the damage is consistent with the mortar shelling. He

4 states that in one of his conclusions, that the damage is consistent. So

5 I want to get into the extent of the damage. So because of his

6 statements -- conclusions, this is relevant testimony.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, I'm afraid you've lost me in your

8 relevance. The man who is a witness here is giving evidence as a

9 ballistics expert as to the types of weapons that he indicates were being

10 used, as to where the fall of shells might be, et cetera. Now, we have

11 from that got to the point that by one means or another he accepts that a

12 large number of shells fell in the Old Town. Now, what is the point with

13 this witness's expertise of learning that in the Old Town, among the

14 damaged targets, were a range of different types of buildings and that as

15 a consequence of shells falling in the occupied town people were killed or

16 injured?

17 MR. WEINER: Because he claims in his conclusions that his number,

18 which he arrives at or his estimate, it's not a specific number, it's an

19 estimate, that the damage in the Old Town that occurred according to the

20 Croatian study is consistent with his estimate as to the number of JNA

21 shells that landed in the Old Town. Since he is claiming as a result that

22 that estimate in that Croatian report is consistent with his estimate,

23 it's consistent, therefore, I just want to go over the extent of the

24 damage because he's saying it's consistent with his estimate.

25 JUDGE PARKER: But what is the point that you're going to? Are

1 you trying to say that his estimate is wrong? Or are you accepting his

2 estimate?

3 MR. WEINER: No, I'm not accepting his estimate.

4 JUDGE PARKER: How, then, is this cross-examination pursuing that

5 line?

6 MR. WEINER: I just want to see if he's aware of the extent of the

7 damage.

8 JUDGE PARKER: You're not dealing with extent, you're dealing with

9 types. You're going to injuries to people, these types of monuments,

10 buildings, et cetera. Isn't this just merely a general canvassing of the

11 nature of the town?

12 MR. WEINER: No, because we as Prosecution have the burden of

13 proving that that damage was, in fact, caused by the JNA shelling, and

14 this witness seems to be indicating in his report, he's indicating that it

15 was. And I just want to further establish that.

16 JUDGE PARKER: That's the whole point. Why, then, are you going

17 over the details again?

18 MR. WEINER: I'll move on.

19 JUDGE PARKER: We accept that you have reached that point with

20 this witness's evidence.

21 MR. WEINER: All right. I'll move on. Sorry.

22 Q. Let's move to a little bit of a different area, sir. In your

23 report on page 20 of the English, you indicate that the 3rd Battalion of

24 the 5th Brigade directed its fire at the Lapad area.

25 MR. WEINER: Could the witness please be shown map 132, P132.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, what was the page

2 reference you made? On page 20, there's no mention of it.

3 MR. WEINER:

4 Q. 20.

5 A. [In English] 20? On page 20, in my --

6 Q. Yes, page 20, please.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Weiner, please.

8 MR. WEINER:

9 Q. If you go to the second-full paragraph, sir. One moment. Right

10 in the middle. "The 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre mortars of the

11 5th Mechanised Infantry Brigade, 3rd Battalion, given the disposition of

12 the 82 mortar firing positions in the Pobrezje sector and the 120 mortar

13 firing positions in the Greblje sector, given their maximum ranges were

14 unable to fire on the Dubrovnik Old Town. Their fire was directed on the

15 firing positions of DOS forces deployed in Lapad to the west of the

16 Old Town."

17 Do you see that, sir?

18 A. Yes, I do, and that's logical. In other words, what were we

19 trying to say? 120-millimetre mortars in the region of Greblje and in the

20 region of Pobrezje were at a location which is bigger than the maximum

21 range of a mortar, and these mortars could not have hit the Old Town of

22 Dubrovnik. Mortars at Greblje were over 6 and a half kilometres away,

23 whereas 6.500 metres is the maximum range of a mortar. So they were over

24 6 and a half kilometres away from the Old Town. We said that.

25 Q. I know that, the questions I have -- and you can sit down,

1 Madam usher if you like. The question I have is are you familiar with

2 some other locations outside the Old Town? Do you know where Babin Kuk is

3 on the map? Are you familiar with Babin Kuk? Could you show us where

4 Babin Kuk is.

5 A. This map, well, this is Babin Kuk.

6 Q. Yes, right there.

7 A. This.

8 Q. And you know where Lapad is right below Babin Kuk?

9 A. Yes, this is Lapad, this.

10 Q. And you know towards the bottom corner where that dot is, the

11 elbow of it, where the Hotel Libertas is? Are you familiar with the

12 Hotel Libertas to the right side where the dot is?

13 A. I don't know the location precisely. This is a large-scale map, 1

14 to 100.000, I think. So it can barely be seen.

15 MR. WEINER: Could the witness be shown map P11, too, please, so

16 he can see where Hotel Libertas is.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is the map that

18 Negodic -- I'm sorry, Nojko Marinovic used. And this served as a basis

19 for us for determining the locations of the Croatian firing positions.

20 And in the annex we have listed three, and we included this map as well.

21 MR. WEINER:

22 Q. I'm not asking about Nojko Marinovic --

23 A. Libertas is here.

24 Q. Okay. Do you see where --

25 A. Libertas is here in this area.

1 Q. Okay. Could you show us where it is on map 132. Could that one

2 be taken away, please. We don't need that any more.

3 A. Can I just have a look. Listen, you're asking me to use a map.

4 So quite clearly here in this bay, I think it's called Dance, this is

5 where Libertas is, this dark dot. I don't know if you can see it clearly

6 on your screen. That's the Libertas Hotel.

7 Q. Okay. Now --

8 THE WITNESS: Just a moment.

9 MR. WEINER:

10 Q. The dark dot. Now, sir --

11 A. No, let me show you precisely. This is where Libertas is. Here.

12 Q. Okay, thank you. Now, sir, there has been testimony in this case

13 that this map is 1 to 50.000. We measured it this morning, and it came

14 out to 1 to 71.000. I'd rather go with the larger number, which would

15 mean that 1 millimetre is 71 metres, a centimetre is 710.

16 Do you have a ruler with you, sir, with millimetres and

17 centimetres? Do you have a ruler with you? Could you please measure from

18 the 3rd of the 5th -- the mortar battalion from the 3 of the 5th first to

19 the Babin Kuk area and tell us what the distance is. I have a ruler if

20 you need one, sir.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you allow me, we

23 have a problem with this map. This map is a photocopy, of course, and we

24 lost its scale in photocopy. So we need to know the exact scale in order

25 for us to be able to do any measurements whatsoever. And we don't know

1 what the scale vis-a-vis the original is on this copy. So any kind of

2 measurement or calculation would be inappropriate if we are to do it on

3 the basis of this map. Thank you, Your Honour.

4 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, this map has been used throughout trial

5 to determine distances. It has been used as 1 to 50.000. We measured it

6 today because it is copied, and we came out to 1 to 71.000 which is more

7 in favour of the Defence, and I'd rather use the 1 to 71.000 which is 1

8 millimetre is 71 metres; a centimetre is 710 metres.

9 JUDGE PARKER: How did you measure it today to get 1 to 71.000?

10 MR. WEINER: We had the military analysts unit upstairs measure

11 it. They compared it from one map to another.

12 JUDGE PARKER: That's not evidence that's going to assist us with

13 the scale. The point made by Mr. Petrovic seems very well made. Because

14 of photocopying, this is not a reliable scale of map.

15 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, it has been used throughout this trial.

16 This is not the first time it has been used --

17 JUDGE PARKER: I know. All you're doing is demonstrating that the

18 measurements made have been unreliable.

19 MR. WEINER: Can the witness use the ruler and determine his own

20 scale?

21 JUDGE PARKER: How does he determine the scale unless he knows

22 precisely the distance between two points on the map of his own knowledge?

23 MR. WEINER: That's what they basically did in the map unit.

24 JUDGE PARKER: That's not this witness. We haven't heard the map

25 unit give evidence.

1 Mr. Petrovic, it seems to be accepted that in the photocopying,

2 the scale is not produced faithfully. It is from a series as I understand

3 it of 1 to 50.000, but it is no longer to that scale.

4 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, we use P10 which is a map to scale. If

5 he could compare the two maps --

6 JUDGE PARKER: If he can do that, he can tell us approximately the

7 scale.

8 MR. WEINER:

9 Q. Or do you have one of your maps with a scale with you? Because I

10 noticed on your maps, the two maps you photocopied in your report, you

11 both had scales, I think one was 1 to 50.000 and the other was 1 to

12 25.000. Do you have those with you today, sir?

13 A. Yes, that's possible. I have already established this. And I can

14 say that the fire position of the firing group of the 5th Battalion -- I'm

15 sorry, of the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Motorised Infantry Brigade is at

16 7.800 metres from the Old Town as the crow flies. In other words, these

17 mortars were not able to target the Old Town because the maximum range is

18 6.423 metres.

19 Q. Thank you. My question was what is the distance to Babin Kuk, if

20 you can determine that, from those mortars, the 3rd of the 5th to

21 Babin Kuk, sir? If you could please do that.

22 A. Roughly speaking, 5.000 metres given the fact that this is a large

23 map. So practically 5.000 metres, which is more than two-thirds of the

24 maximum range of a mortar.

25 Q. Okay. So if you look at Babin Kuk, it's part of a peninsula, a

1 roundish or an oval, horizontal peninsula. Is that whole area of

2 Babin Kuk within the range of those 120-millimetre mortars?

3 A. It's at the very far end of the range. But not the whole area;

4 the ultimate point of the peninsula, and if your scale is correct, I

5 haven't checked it, so 78 --

6 Q. 71.

7 A. -- that would --

8 Q. 71, not 78.

9 A. I would say that the scale of this map is 1 to 60.000. The

10 ultimate range is -- well, there's no chance that this ultimate

11 point -- if you ask me about the lower edge at the seashore and if you

12 would ask me to hit the shore of this peninsula, I'm talking about the

13 point located horizontally between point 6 and point 8, and the point --

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Can we

17 continue this cross-examination if we have proper map in front of the

18 witness with full and proper scale, no photocopies and precise scale. Any

19 conclusion can only be based on this kind of material, so I kindly ask

20 Your Honour to instruct that this cross-examination continue based on the

21 proper map.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have an original map, 1 to 25.000.

23 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous interpretation continues] ...

24 Mr. Petrovic. We understand from the witness that he is aware of the

25 scale difference and of the general distances in the area. And he has

1 both a proper-scale map and the distorted one. And on those bases, I

2 think this cross-examination is proceeding on, and the witness is

3 providing reliable distances. He's doing the double measurement, as it

4 were. That's from what I can see. And I would take it from the head

5 nodding of the witness that is correct as well.

6 So I appreciate your concern, but I think the witness is aware of

7 the problem and is correcting it as he goes. Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

9 MR. WEINER:

10 Q. So the island of Babin Kuk is within the range of the

11 120-millimetre mortars at the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Brigade. Isn't

12 that correct, sir?

13 A. Yes. 4.250 metres is to the centre of the peninsula. That is

14 what I conclude as I watch as this 1 to 25.000 scale map, 120-millimetre

15 mortar position, and if we view the very top point of Babin Kuk lies at

16 3 -- 4.300 metres, or rather, 4.250 metres, I don't know which exactly

17 point you want me to discuss. Now, you asked me about Libertas, and if

18 you want to know this range --

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. -- the distance to Libertas is 6.250 metres.

21 Q. Therefore, sir, since a mortar, a 120-millimetre mortar has a

22 range of 6340 metres, approximately 6340, the Libertas Hotel is within the

23 range of the 120-millimetre mortars on -- of the 3rd Battalion of the

24 5th Brigade? Just within the range.

25 A. To be precise, it is at 6.125 metres. That is at the farthest end

1 of the range, that is about 200 metres to the full range, or let's say 150

2 metres. So the Libertas is at 6.150. But you know, using an ultimate

3 range limit and to target an objective there is not very feasible and

4 practicable because it depends on various other elements like weather

5 conditions and position of firing. In principle, mortars are never used

6 to target the objectives which are beyond two-thirds of their maximum

7 range. They may hit or maybe fire randomly, but they can hardly hit the

8 target.

9 As I said, 7.000 metres was the distance between the Old Town of

10 Dubrovnik and the Greblje where the 120-millimetre mortars were.

11 Therefore, they were incapable of hitting the Old Town from that distance.

12 Q. But all I'm saying is the mortars of the 3rd Battalion of the

13 5th Brigade, if we look at those mortars, the Libertas Hotel area is

14 within the range. It's at the outer limits, but it's still 150 to 200

15 metres within the range. Isn't that correct, sir?

16 A. Yes, they're at the very far end of the range.

17 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I'll probably start a new area, and

18 it...

19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Weiner. I think that's probably a

20 convenient time to break. And we'll resume at 2.00.

21 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.57 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 2.05 p.m.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

24 MR. WEINER: Good afternoon, Your Honour. Your Honour, I have two

25 items for the Court. I have the judgement and opinion of Stanislav Galic,

1 and I invite the Court's attention to paragraph 393 and footnote 1338. I

2 have copies for the Court and all parties. That's what I referred to

3 earlier.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

5 Mr. Weiner, do you have some questions?

6 MR. WEINER: One more thing, Your Honour. I read from a

7 transcript from Galic, I said pages 20.364 and 20.365.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

9 MR. WEINER: Apparently, the copying machine copied multiple pages

10 of 20.364. I'll get that at the next break, Your Honour. Sorry.

11 Q. All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Vilicic.

12 A. Good afternoon.

13 Q. Sir, you testified yesterday and today about the meteorological

14 effects of shells. Do you recall that? That's also listed in your

15 report.

16 A. Yes, yes.

17 Q. And you testified that the problem was or the major problem was

18 this wind which you called Bura.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And that's a wind that moves north to south?

21 A. No. The main direction of the Bura wind is northeast.

22 Q. Okay. So it runs from northeast to southwest?

23 A. Yes. Normally. Relative to the position of Dubrovnik, it blows

24 from land to sea. And all the projectiles that are fired are pushed

25 towards Dubrovnik. In fact, all the trajectories are deflected from

1 positions VP-3 and VP-4.

2 Q. Okay. Now, there's another wind that also is involved or is also

3 seen in the area of Dubrovnik, and that's called a Jugo, did I pronounce

4 it correctly? Something like that, Jugo?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And that moves from south to north from the sea to the land?

7 A. The main direction of the Jugo wind is south-north, yes.

8 MR. WEINER: Okay. With the Court's permission, can Exhibit P19

9 be shown from 10 minutes to 10 minutes and 38 seconds, please.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

11 [Videoclip played]

12 MR. WEINER: Could you stop right there.

13 Q. Sir, do you recognise that area? Do you know where that is? Do

14 you recognise the Old Town harbour?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. All right.

17 MR. WEINER: And could you let that continue, please.

18 [Videoclip played]

19 MR. WEINER:

20 Q. You'll notice, sir, the smoke is blowing north, maybe slightly

21 northwest. Isn't that a Jugo wind?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And do you see the date on that video?

24 A. I see, yes.

25 Q. That's December 6th, 1991?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So there were times when there was not a Bura wind, but there was

3 a Jugo wind blowing away from the city.

4 A. For the Bura wind to transform into a Jugo, that has not happened

5 yet. Obviously what happens here is a quite different effect. Above

6 Dubrovnik, there occurs a circulation of a strong Bura wind blowing from

7 land to sea creating a vacuum on the slope below Srdj, and there occurs a

8 circular movement of area. Why don't you take the Djelo Jusic film which

9 served as a basis, apart from witness testimony, for claiming that the

10 Bura was so strong that branches of trees swayed, swaying as we can see in

11 the film towards land, not towards the sea.

12 Q. Sir, you just saw on the video that there was a Uga wind as

13 opposed to a Bura. And if there is a Jugo wind, it is blowing away from

14 the Old Town.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The witness said in

16 the previous answer that the branches swayed towards the sea.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Jugo doesn't have to blow here.

18 This can happen even before the wind. We're talking here about two argus

19 vessels which were not hit, two argus vessels in the old harbour which

20 were not hit on the 6th of December. Therefore, this figure on the 6th of

21 December does not correspond to the setting on fire of these two ships

22 which were anchored in the old harbour of Dubrovnik.

23 MR. WEINER:

24 Q. Sir, you based certain conclusions on the fact that there was a

25 Bura wind affecting the shells. If there was not a Bura wind, but in fact

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 it was a Jugo wind blowing north, blowing away from the Old Town, wouldn't

2 that affect your conclusions?

3 A. I would not change the main conclusion because if you remember in

4 the depiction of results, we primarily analysed and showed here the

5 analysis discounting the impact of the lateral wind. And all the

6 testimony we had here, primarily that of Djelo Jusic who was there said

7 that there was an extremely strong Bura wind blowing. Djelo Jusic said

8 everybody knows about the Dubrovnik Bura. There is no reason to doubt

9 that Djelo Jusic who is a local and who is making that film that day is

10 wrong. And the film shows clearly that the branches were swaying from

11 land towards the sea. And I am not familiar with any case, although I was

12 frequently on the coast and I have a house there, where the Bura wind

13 would turn into the Jugo. Jugo is characterised by low pressure, whereas

14 the Bura wind is characterised by high pressure.

15 Q. I never said that a Bura would transfer into a Jugo. However,

16 sir, since there is a Jugo wind as you admit, you're looking at a Jugo

17 wind blowing away. My question is does that affect your dispersion

18 calculations? Because you're basing those on the basis of a Bura wind, if

19 there was not a Bura wind, that would change your calculations or your

20 statistics would be changed.

21 A. No, it would not. All that would happen, that data involving the

22 Bura wind would be excluded. But I cannot understand that the Bura wind

23 was actually blowing, and you are showing me a picture involving a Jugo.

24 In the course of one day, there cannot be such a sharp change in pressure

25 wherein the Bura would transform or change into a Jugo. Jugo is a

1 characteristic of a field of low pressure, whereas a Bura wind is

2 characteristic of a field of high pressure. I can also remind you of the

3 general report for ten years of the institute for meteorology.

4 Q. Sir, on page 88 of your conclusions, you say "bad meteorological

5 conditions and an extremely strong wind - Bura - on 6 December 1991, in

6 particular, considerably contributed to the diversion of trajectory of

7 projectiles fired from all positions, VP-1, VP-3, and VP-4, towards the

8 Dubrovnik Old Town which also resulted in a higher number of projectiles

9 landing within the walls of the Dubrovnik Old Town."

10 Now, if there was not an extremely strong Bura wind but a Jugo

11 wind, would not that affect your dispersion statistics? Because

12 apparently from this conclusion, you based them on a strong Bura wind.

13 A. Not only on that, please. I have stated clearly that the basic

14 analysis shown here speaks of dispersion after abbreviated and simple

15 preparation and correction of firing without the influence of wind. And

16 then in the next step in every case, such as 4.3, if you remember, is

17 without the impact of wind, when you fire from VP-1 at C-3, involving

18 impact of wind. It is clear that the impact of wind only increases the

19 probability of shells landing within the Old Town. And I have additional

20 data to prove it if you need.

21 Q. And that's what you say on page 50. "As a result of the effect of

22 the gale blowing from the land towards the sea during the flight of

23 projectiles, their trajectories deviated in terms of deflection. Since

24 the firing positions of the JNA mortars were positioned laterally in

25 relation to the selected targets, the effect of the wind naturally led to

1 the deviation of projectiles towards the sea, toward the old -- i.e.,

2 towards the Dubrovnik Old Town."

3 Sir, if the wind was blowing the other way, would not that same

4 strong wind blow the shells or projectiles away from the Old Town of

5 Dubrovnik? If it's blowing from north to south, you claim it blows them

6 in. So if it's blowing from south to north, that should blow them away.

7 Isn't that correct, sir?

8 A. That is correct. That is correct. However, you are overlooking

9 one thing: Namely, the intensity of the Jugo wind is much lower than that

10 of the Bura wind.

11 Q. Okay. Let us move on. In your report, sir, you estimate the

12 number of JNA mortar shells that fell within the Old Town walls. Isn't

13 that correct?

14 A. That could fall within the Old Town, not that fell, but that could

15 have landed within the Old Town. That is a big difference.

16 Q. And your estimate, sir, is based on the number of mortars at each

17 of the three locations and the number of combat sets that each of those

18 mortars fired. Isn't that correct?

19 A. The conclusion was based on the assumption of 100 fired shells or

20 projectiles and on the assumption of one fired combat kit, that is, that

21 each mortar fired one combat kit that, namely, 160 shells were fired from

22 VP-1, 240 from Rajcevic, and another number from Strincijera. That is

23 360. 360, yes, from Strincijera.

24 Q. And you based that, sir, according to the footnote - we're on page

25 89, that's conclusion number 9, and it refers to footnote number 68 - and

1 in footnote --

2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt

3 my learned friend. A part of the witness's answer did not enter the

4 record on page 72 from lines 13 to 18. I would not like to interpret now

5 what was actually said in order not to lead the witness, but I would just

6 like to point out that the answer on record is not the complete answer the

7 witness provided.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

9 Mr. Weiner, would you follow that up.

10 MR. WEINER: Sure, Your Honour.

11 Q. Sir, I asked you earlier, in your report, you estimate the number

12 of JNA mortar shells that fell within the Old Town walls. You made an

13 estimate. I'm adding that. You made an estimate. Isn't that correct,

14 sir?

15 A. That could have landed in the Old Town under the circumstances I

16 described if one combat kit had been fired per mortar. [In English] I use

17 conditional, and you are always using present.

18 Q. Correct, sir. Now, you based this estimate as to one combat kit

19 fired per mortar, and this is on page 89 of your report, footnote 68, on

20 the 9th VPS war diary and a statement from Zlatan Jeremic. Isn't that

21 correct, sir?

22 A. [Interpretation] Yes.

23 Q. Now, first, would you agree that in the war diary, there are no

24 reports as to the number of shells fired from any of those three

25 locations. There is a report as to the number of shells fired on one

1 occasion from the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Brigade, but there is no

2 indication as to the number of shells at any of those three JNA locations.

3 Isn't that correct?

4 A. It is correct that the diary only notes the firing of the mortar

5 from the Greblje location of the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Brigade.

6 However, in the war diary in an earlier entry I found the quantities of

7 ammunition requested for those mortars. I don't know the page number

8 exactly, but I know it says that in total, about 200 shells were required

9 for the 120-millimetre mortar and that in another request, 200 shells were

10 requested for 82-millimetre mortars. I spoke to the commander of that

11 combat group of 120-millimetre mortars, Jankovic [as interpreted], and he

12 told me that on that day, he fired 17 smoke shells --

13 Q. First, who did you speak to and --

14 A. Jeremic, Zlatan --

15 Q. Because I noticed you did refer to Zlatan Jeremic. Are you aware

16 that Zlatan Jeremic was not a witness in this case? Are you aware of

17 that, sir?

18 A. I know that he was not. But I also know very well, I received

19 information, that he was the commander of the combat mortar group of

20 120-millimetre mortars from Ledenice.

21 Q. Sir, he was not a witness in this case, and none of his statements

22 have been introduced into this case. Are you aware of that, sir?

23 A. I'm aware of that. But I'm not aware of the fact that if certain

24 information becomes available to me, I'm not allowed to present it to this

25 Court. Nobody told me that.

1 Q. Sir, are you aware, sir, that the information from Zlatan Jeremic,

2 whatever information you have, as well as that earlier -- that earlier

3 request in the diary are not in evidence in this case? Are you aware of

4 that? Or am I just telling you this for the first time?

5 A. I know that Zlatan Jeremic was not a witness in this trial. At

6 the moment when I talked to Zlatan Jeremic, he was not a witness as far as

7 I know. He had not appeared before this Honourable Trial Chamber.

8 Q. And no statements from Mr. Jeremic, whether oral or written, have

9 been introduced into this Court. Are you aware of that, at this trial?

10 No statements of Mr. Zlatan Jeremic have been introduced, isn't that

11 correct, since you have been --

12 A. I know when I talked to Mr. Zlatan Jeremic, my first question to

13 him was whether he had been engaged by the Tribunal, whether he was

14 supposed to be a witness there. And then he said to me no. And then it

15 was only logical that I said to him, then, "Okay, tell me please where was

16 the location?" That was the primary thing that interested me. Where the

17 120-millimetre mortar was located precisely.

18 Q. And that information that you received as to the location, his

19 statement as to location, is also not evidence in this case. Are you

20 aware of that now? Would you accept my statement that

21 his -- Zlatan Jeremic's statement as to the location, as to the amount of

22 shells that he fired are not evidence in this case?

23 On December 6th -- I'm sorry, you're nodding your head in the up

24 and down direction.

25 A. I nodded. I don't agree. I do not agree with you in order to

1 establish the truth, we cannot mention the exact location in our expert

2 report. Please, on the basis of which report submitted for the expert

3 analysis can there be a different location?

4 Q. Sir, my question to you is are you aware that his statement as to

5 the location or any statement from Zlatan Jeremic is not in evidence in

6 this Court? Are you aware of that?

7 A. Sir, I'm an engineer. I do not know the legal regulations

8 sufficiently in order to be giving the right answers to such questions.

9 You are putting legal questions to me, and I'm not qualified to answer

10 them. I'm not a legal expert. I am answering technical questions.

11 Q. Sir, I'm not asking you if you're a legal expert. You testified

12 this morning that you had monitored the trial, either today or yesterday,

13 that you have been monitoring the trial over the Internet. Are you aware

14 that Zlatan Jeremic has not been a witness in this case? That's all. Are

15 you aware of that?

16 A. I have said so already, that I did know that he was not a witness

17 here.

18 Q. Thank you. Now, sir, you weren't in any of those three JNA mortar

19 positions on December 6th, 1991. Isn't that correct?

20 A. Please, I'm -- I was a member of the military technical institute

21 on that day, and there is no logic in my being at any one of those

22 positions.

23 Q. So that's a no? I take that as a no, you were not at any of those

24 positions.

25 A. It is only logical that I was not.

1 Q. In fact, you weren't anywhere in the Dubrovnik area on December

2 6th, 1991. Isn't that correct?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. And from where you were, you could not witness any of the mortar

5 firing from any of those three JNA positions. Isn't that correct?

6 A. I could not have been the witness, and I do not understand how

7 come an expert who does an analysis for a particular matter has to be on

8 the spot in order to give answers. I find your question to be totally

9 illogical. You're asking an expert to confirm that he was not at a firing

10 position, and I am doing an expert opinion ten years after all this

11 happened.

12 Q. Sir, just --

13 A. More than ten years.

14 Q. I'm asking you some simple questions. Would you just please

15 answer them.

16 Now, according to your report, you do not possess any records, JNA

17 records, as to the number of shells fired from each of those mortars on

18 the 6th of December 1991. Isn't that correct?

19 A. That's correct. That's correct. And the entire expert opinion is

20 based on 100 projectiles and one combat kit. And another thing that is

21 mentioned in the expertise: According to norms for destroying a

22 particular target, how many projectiles should be fired in order to

23 destroy a particular target. We do not use any other information.

24 Q. Correct. So basically, sir, you're basing your estimate on an

25 assumption as to the number of sets used, you're assuming the amount of

1 ammunition that they could have had. It's all a group of assumptions, and

2 from that you're making an estimate.

3 A. No.

4 Q. Let's take it slowly, then. Sir, you weren't present. And not

5 being present, you cannot state or you did not witness the exact number of

6 shells fired from each mortar. Isn't that correct?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. And you have never seen any written records indicating the number

9 of shells fired from each mortar, each JNA mortar at those three

10 locations. Isn't that correct?

11 A. That is correct, too, that I did not see that.

12 Q. So you can only estimate the number of shells fired from each of

13 those three locations.

14 A. Please, I'm not estimating anything. The expertise does not give

15 any estimate. The expertise says specifically that if 100 shells were

16 fired on certain conditions, the result will be such and such. If one

17 combat kit is fired, that is to say, of a group of mortars, then there can

18 be a certain number of hits. Nothing more than that.

19 Q. And you begin each of those statements "if 100 shells are fired,"

20 "if a certain number of kits are fired." You can only estimate the

21 number of shells fired or the number of kits fired because you weren't

22 there to obtain the exact number. Isn't that correct?

23 A. I cannot give you a direct answer. It is true that I was not

24 there. But I cannot understand that you keep on insisting on this

25 estimate, how many hits there would be in the case of 100 projectiles or

1 one combat kit, and you want to generalise that for an overall situation.

2 That was not the aim of my analysis. I did not have the right elements

3 for firing data for that.

4 Q. I'm not interested right now as to the number of impacts. I'm

5 interested as the number of shells fired. That's why I'm saying since you

6 weren't there to count at each of those mortars the numbers fired, there

7 are no records as to the numbers fired, you have to begin each of your

8 statements with "if 100 was fired," "if 1 or 2 kits were fired." You

9 cannot give us an exact number of shells fired on that day. Isn't that

10 correct, you can't state that?

11 A. That is correct, that I cannot say how many because I do not have

12 any such records.

13 Q. Okay. Now, with your dispersion examples that we had throughout

14 your report, you would vary the number of shells that could have fallen

15 within the Old Town based on the type of preparation, whether full

16 preparation was used, simple preparation, abbreviated preparation. Isn't

17 that correct?

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. And if we use either simple, abbreviated, or even full

20 preparation, you can't state for certain how many shells were fired at a

21 target as part of the initial preparation before it hit the target, before

22 we have the corrections and the full firing.

23 A. Oh yes, yes.

24 Q. You can only estimate. You can say maybe ten were fired, maybe

25 six were fired, maybe three were fired. All you can do is estimate that.

1 Isn't that correct? An almost-guess.

2 A. Well, let me tell you: Each case is specific. The infantry rules

3 for 82-millimetre mortars spell this out exactly. That is, the

4 methodology of how primary or preliminary targeting is carried out in

5 order to have the corrections carried out eventually. If I have time,

6 then I could correct with one weapon. If as the situation was on the 6th

7 of December that all of a sudden fire has to be opened at a -- in a

8 completely different direction, in completely new firing positions then it

9 is quite clear that a correction cannot be made with one weapon only and

10 then to wait for the calculations for all. In that case, there is a

11 so-called burst of fire, the entire battery fires one after the other.

12 And then on the basis of the assessment of the fall of the shell, but the

13 minimum is three groups of shells. It even has to be verified, the angle

14 of firing, even five groups fire. So it is correct that I do not know how

15 many groups were fired, but the minimum had to be three projectiles if he

16 had time to use one weapon only, or a minimum of 12 projectiles if in view

17 of the situation he had to use four -- or rather to convey fire quickly,

18 to move fire quickly to other targets. So it's very hard to assess this,

19 especially in view of the situation, especially if he had to look for the

20 target. If he did not observe the target correctly, then perhaps he even

21 had to fire several groups under such conditions before he realised what

22 the exact situation was that he was close to the desired target; that is

23 to say, that projectiles were falling close to the desired target.

24 Q. And since you were not there and we have no records, you can't

25 tell if it was three that were fired as part of the initial preparation or

1 if it was 12 that were fired or if they all had to fire without the full

2 corrections. Isn't that correct, sir?

3 A. Yes, yes.

4 Q. Because you also know that it's possible even with the simplest

5 preparations, simple preparations, that you could initially fire towards a

6 target and hit it on the initial -- on the initial shot? It's possible?

7 A. Yes, but this is in theory. In theory, yes. Practically, very

8 rarely. Especially in these conditions. Again, I refer to the weather

9 situation. It doesn't have to be the wind only. The fact is that firing

10 positions are at an altitude which is high above the targets. They do not

11 have the meteorological situation, air pressure, the temperature, the

12 exact temperature of the gunpowder charges. Then also the regimen of each

13 and every individual weapon. In such a situation, there is no chance.

14 That would be pure lottery to hit the target with the first shell. That

15 has never happened in my career even after 100.000 firings that we hit the

16 target immediately unless certain ranges were studied beforehand and we

17 had all the necessary elements.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to speak

19 slower.

20 MR. WEINER:

21 Q. Sir, you worked as a research scientist. You weren't a soldier in

22 a mortar battery.

23 Now, if you do hit it on the first shot, then the other mortars

24 would all have the corrected data after that. Isn't that correct?

25 A. [No audible response]

1 Q. And there would be less dispersion.

2 A. Yes, that is correct.

3 Q. All right. Let's move a little bit on from that, sir. You're

4 familiar with the area north of the Old Town known as Bosanka? If you're

5 not, you could take your map out or we could use one of our maps, map

6 132.

7 A. I could use a map. I am familiar with Bosanka, but right this

8 minute I could not place it if I didn't have a map available.

9 Q. It's between Zarkovica and Srdj.

10 A. Please, I cannot give you answers on the basis of this map. It is

11 such a large-scale map that I cannot recognise locations exactly. Please,

12 then it's better to look at my map, the 1 to 25.000 one, and then I can

13 tell you exactly what is because this one is one that I'm not familiar

14 with and also the scale is very big. Also, the markings can barely be

15 seen. Well, fortunately I can see Bosanka here.

16 Q. Doctor, please, look at your own map for a moment and familiarise

17 yourself with Bosanka.

18 A. Yes. I saw Bosanka even on this map.

19 Yes, I've seen Bosanka. Yes. Should I put it here on the

20 overhead projector?

21 Q. That's fine.

22 A. Just a moment, please. This is Bosanka. This is the settlement

23 of Bosanka.

24 Q. And you see it looks like it's approximately 2 kilometres from the

25 Old Town of Dubrovnik? Approximately?

1 A. Please, if you need accurate information... Well, let's say that

2 was it, but it's less, I think. Less. Zarkovica -- I know Zarkovica.

3 Zarkovica is about 2.300 metres. Bosanka, of course, is closer. Now,

4 it's hard to see...

5 Q. What is closer to the Old Town, Strincijera or Bosanka? Isn't

6 Bosanka slightly closer?

7 A. Bosanka is closer to the Old Town. Strincijera is further away,

8 much further away.

9 Q. Okay. Now, sir, in your report you indicated --

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. -- on page 2 --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. -- that you - you can sit down, Mr. Usher - you indicated on page

14 2 that you had considered the witness testimony of Admiral Jokic as part

15 of your report. You state that on page 2 with your list. It's number 7

16 on your list of items that you reviewed. And did you, in fact --

17 A. Yes, item 7. That's correct.

18 Q. And did you, in fact, consider the testimony of Admiral Jokic?

19 Did you in fact do that?

20 A. His oral statement, yes. If he drew any maps, I wasn't able to

21 see that. Since you provided on the Internet only partial broadcast. In

22 fact, there's only audio broadcast. There's no video on the internet. So

23 I did read the transcripts. That's right.

24 Q. Now, having reviewed Admiral Jokic's testimony, you should be

25 aware that he testified that there were four mortars with the JNA unit at

1 Bosanka. That's on page 4.014 and 4.015, March 26th.

2 Could you please show us in your report you refer to four mortars,

3 those 82-millimetre mortars, located on Bosanka? Where in your report do

4 you refer to those four mortars?

5 A. I made no reference to them because practically they were not

6 relevant for this analysis of ours. I personally believe that this

7 information is incorrect. Admiral Jokic is not very knowledgeable about

8 the locations where the JNA weapons were positioned.

9 Q. Sir, you are -- are you trying to tell us that you were in a

10 better position to know where the JNA weapons were on December 6th, 1991,

11 than Admiral Jokic, who was the commander of the 9th VPS, that you knew

12 better than he did where his units were? Is that what you're trying to

13 say?

14 A. That's not what I said.

15 Q. Sir, where in your report do you have the dispersion statistics or

16 the dispersion graphs in relation to the firing of those four mortars at

17 any of those alleged targets outside the Old Town? Where -- any firing

18 from Bosanka at those three alleged or four alleged targets outside the

19 Old Town, where in your report do you have that? Do you have any

20 calculations relating to shell dispersion from mortars firing from

21 Bosanka?

22 A. No, Bosanka is not covered by the expert analysis, but if it is

23 necessary I can do it at a later stage.

24 Q. Okay. Now if those four mortars on Bosanka fired at those targets

25 you alleged in your report which were just outside the walls of the

1 Old Town, would not some of those shells have dispersed into the Old Town,

2 sir?

3 A. Yes, that was possible. But depending on the targets that they

4 were engaging.

5 Q. All right. So it's possible some of those shells could have been

6 dispersed and that would increase your numbers as to the number of shells

7 that fell within the Old Town.

8 A. If you want me to tell you precisely, let us take the primary

9 direction. If target C-4 was fired at from Bosanka and if shells missed

10 the target, then they would have fallen into the southern part of the

11 Old Town, all of them, given the azimuth of direction of firing at C-4

12 from Bosanka. Had they been firing at C-5 and C-3, the same situation

13 would occur as happened with the mortars fired from Dubac and Rajcevic.

14 We would have had the same situation in regard to the wind effects.

15 Q. Okay. So as a result, if you did consider Bosanka, you would have

16 found that additional shells fell within the Old Town. Yes or no? If we

17 add Bosanka to the list of mortars firing.

18 A. Well, I can't agree exactly with you. If I took into

19 consideration ten mortar batteries, that would increase the number of

20 shells ten times. But since I focussed my entire analysis on the

21 assumption that had this been fired, the result would have been that. So

22 that would apply to Bosanka as it did on Strincijera and other positions.

23 We have established that I could not find out how many shells were fired.

24 There were no records. And therefore, we cannot say what you just said,

25 that more shells would have fallen. Had I had accurate data about the

1 shells fired, I would have been in a position to say, yes, either more or

2 less.

3 Q. Sir, if we use the same statistics or calculations that you've

4 used for the other sets of mortars or the other mortar batteries, that

5 each mortar fired approximately one set of shells, so if each of those

6 82-millimetre mortars fired approximately one set of shells, would not

7 that increase the number of shells that would fall within the walls of the

8 Old Town as a result of dispersion?

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the report that you

12 have in front of you had been compiled for one year in a very accurate and

13 meticulous manner, and it contains all the details necessary to draw the

14 conclusions that this report contains. My learned colleague is now

15 expecting the expert witness within a couple of seconds give his judgement

16 on something that he had been working in similar situations for months.

17 This is quite simply not a serious approach, and I don't think it is fair

18 to expect this kind of view and judgement whereas for the same judgement

19 in a different situation, months were required to achieve that.

20 Therefore, I believe that further insistence along this line of

21 questioning is improper.

22 JUDGE PARKER: I can't agree, Mr. Petrovic. I think the

23 propositions being put are rather straightforward, logical matters, not

24 matters of complexity, and the witness ought to be able to deal with

25 those.

1 Carry on, Mr. Weiner.

2 MR. WEINER:

3 Q. Sir, would you like me to ask the question again?

4 A. Would you please repeat the question.

5 Q. If we use the same calculations and statistics that you used for

6 each of the other mortar batteries, that each of the mortars in each

7 battery fired one set of mortar shells, those were your estimates, if we

8 use those same estimates for the mortars on Bosanka that each of the four

9 fired one set of shells, would not that -- would not additional shells

10 have fallen within the walls of the Old Town?

11 A. I can give you an explicit answer based on high level of

12 probability, and that is that C-4 was not fired at from Bosanka. I based

13 that on the fact that the appropriate number of shells did not land in the

14 southern part of the Old Town. If we base our assumptions on 100 shells,

15 as an ad hoc conclusion I can tell you that Bosanka did not fire at C-4.

16 As for the remaining elements, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to give you a

17 precise answer because I would need to make a rough estimate of the

18 charge, of the distances of C-3 and C-5 targets, et cetera.

19 Q. Your answer sounds very much like Mr. Petrovic's objection, sir.

20 All I'm asking you for is the following: Doesn't common sense tell you

21 that additional shells would have fallen? I'm not asking for an exact

22 number. I don't want any precise number. But doesn't common sense tell

23 you if you fire a hundred shells in the vicinity of the Old Town, some are

24 going to disperse into the Old Town? Isn't that correct, sir?

25 A. No, it is not, no. You obviously tend to overlook one fact. We

1 are talking about much shorter ranges, which consequently affects the

2 pattern of dispersion, which is considerably decreased than in the cases

3 that we had under consideration. So I cannot say that as in the cases I

4 have analysed it would have reached the Old Town. My rough estimate is

5 that the range was between 1.000 or 1.200 metres; the farthest one would

6 be C-3 at 1.300 metres. At 1.000 metres, probably the dispersion elements

7 are much lower than if we take into consideration 3.000-metre range from

8 Rajcevic or from Strincijera, which is much farther away, almost twice or

9 two and a half times farther from the town. I don't know where exactly on

10 Bosanka the mortars were positioned, so I cannot apply any logic and claim

11 that they would have fallen in -- inside the Old Town. My impression is

12 that they wouldn't because all those previous cases never covered the

13 entire area of the Old Town by firing from 3.500 metres.

14 Apparently, they would never reached the Old Town, but without

15 proper calculations I cannot give you an ad hoc answer. I would need to

16 have firing tables in front of me. I can say that at a thousand metres,

17 the VD value is about 8 to 10 metres. That is the deflection. And if a

18 target is at 200 metres away, there is no chance that those shells would

19 have fallen inside the Old Town. That applies both to C-4 and C-5. We

20 already said that this particularly applied to C-3 in Bogosica Park that

21 were outside the range of 82-millimetre mortars that, as you say, were at

22 Bosanka. And these shells also would not have reached the Old Town.

23 Q. But, sir, in your own words, you can only offer your impression

24 because you --

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone counsel, please.

1 MR. WEINER:

2 Q. Sir, in your own words you can only offer your impression because

3 you haven't done those calculations. Isn't that correct?

4 A. That is correct. But I can make an estimate based on my expertise

5 and knowledge on mortar dispersion values.

6 Q. That's interesting because you had previously indicated that you

7 couldn't make any -- offer any expert opinion, that you need time. Let's

8 move on, sir.

9 There were also recoilless weapons on top of Zarkovica.

10 A. Yes. Yes. There is information that there were recoilless guns

11 at Zarkovica.

12 Q. And those recoilless guns were overlooking the Old Town of

13 Dubrovnik, weren't they?

14 A. Yes, yes.

15 Q. And are you aware of the range of those recoilless guns? We were

16 told that they were 82-millimetre recoilless guns -- 82-millimetre

17 weapons, guns, on top of Zarkovica. Are you aware of the range?

18 A. Sir, I was one of the designers of that gun, and I was awarded an

19 army prize for this gun. So I know fully well about this gun. It is

20 intended for targets up to 60 -- 600 metres, exceptionally up to 1.000

21 metres. And we have provided a table for --

22 THE INTERPRETER: Will the witness please slow down.

23 A. For any range beyond 1.000 metres, the recoilless gun does not

24 have a sight that can use it. They can only use the firing tables and

25 quadrants and try to reach the targets beyond their operational range, and

1 these are recoilless, anti-armour weapons with cumulative shells intended

2 to pierce armour.

3 MR. WEINER:

4 Q. Mr. Nesic testified that there were 82-millimetre guns on top of

5 Zarkovica. What is the range of those 82-millimetre guns that were on top

6 of Zarkovica?

7 A. The effective range of reactive M72 shell is 1.000 metres. It has

8 been designed to shoot up to 1.000 metres. The standard B82, M60 shell is

9 intended for targets at up to 600 metres. Anything beyond those ranges is

10 not something to be fired at with the recoilless gun.

11 Q. Sir, I believe Mr. Nesic testified yesterday that he fired both

12 Maljutkas and the recoilless guns at what he believed to be targets along

13 the walls of the Old Town on the ramparts. Could you reach the Old Town

14 with those recoilless weapons?

15 A. The maximum range makes it possible for a projectile to reach the

16 target, but they cannot aim through a sight. They can only make a rough

17 estimate of the direction and to take an angle by using a quadrant.

18 Q. Using your map, could you measure the distance from Zarkovica to

19 the Old Town. Could you please do that for us.

20 A. Yes. Approximately over 2.000 metres. Let me tell you that what

21 I would be doing now to make -- making these kind of measurements would be

22 inaccurate. We have been using the so-called coordinate metre, which is a

23 special instrument. We had a fully flat map without wrinkles as the one

24 that I have in front of me, so that with coordinate metre, I can make

25 measurements with the margin of error of 25 metres. But to give you a

1 rough estimate, and that this would later be used against me as if I had

2 something very explicitly --

3 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... just try to find an

4 approximation, so it's a little over 2.000 metres, 2200, 2300 metres from

5 Zarkovica. So it's your opinion that the shells from the recoilless

6 cannons -- the shells from the recoilless cannons could have hit the

7 Old Town walls or struck areas along the ramparts of the Old Town?

8 A. To put it better, they could reach at a stretch up to a length of

9 2.000 metres.

10 Q. Now, sir, as part of your calculations, did you determine whether

11 any shells fired by the recoilless cannons penetrated the Old Town walls?

12 Did you consider that as part of your report?

13 A. As I have said since I was one of the designers and I was a

14 designer of the active-reactive shell for the 82-millimetre recoilless

15 gun, I can say that the projectile for the recoilless gun of 82

16 millimetres can pierce a reinforced concrete wall up to 100 millimetres.

17 A projectile from a recoilless gun, because it is activated upon impact on

18 the wall, it disintegrates, and the cumulative jet of which I can tell you

19 the approximate thickness because I made tests, the resulting hole is

20 about 50 millimetres in diameter. And when it comes out, the diameter is

21 about 10 millimetres. So there is no chance for this projectile to pierce

22 a wall of that thickness. It disintegrates before the wall.

23 Q. My question is did you make any determinations or write any

24 calculations or any sections of your report relating to the possibility of

25 shells or projectiles from recoilless cannons entering the Old Town? Is

1 that included --

2 A. No, no. What is included are all artillery and mortar shells in

3 the chapter that speaks about the piercing capacity of these projectiles,

4 plus a table is given.

5 Q. And I notice in one of the videotapes that you reviewed you

6 indicated in your report that you saw a Maljutka shell enter the Old Town

7 and hit the wall of a building. Did you include any section in your

8 report in relation as to the number of Maljutka shells fired into the

9 walls or inside of the walls of the Old Town?

10 A. No, I did not. Because a Maljutka is a guided anti-armour

11 projectile, and what I said about the recoilless projectile is also true

12 of the Maljutka. Upon impact on the wall, it disintegrates, and it is

13 only the cumulative jet that can continue the piercing process. Certainly

14 not the entire projectile. On one film, however, I saw a part of the

15 rocket engine. It was the front wall -- no, sorry. I think it was around

16 the fish shop on the right towards Revelin. On the wall, you can see the

17 tail end of the rocket engine, the stabiliser without the wings. You can

18 only see the carrier of these jet fins without the fins themselves. And

19 it is stuck in the hole, and it is protruding from it. Only based on that

20 we concluded that one Maljutka hit the wall.

21 But if you're asking me for an analysis and if you're asking me

22 whether we computed or calculated the number of projectiles fired, we did

23 not do that.

24 Q. That was my question, sir. Thank you.

25 All right, let's move to another area, sir. On page 99 of your

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 report, you have "General conclusions." I'd like to read your general

2 conclusion. "On the basis of analysing JNA force's actions at the

3 Dubrovnik battleground, primarily on the basis of information that

4 Prosecution Witness Nojko Marinovic and Zeljko Soldo gave to Tribunal

5 representatives, and also in the testimony at the Tribunal by

6 Nojko Marinovic in the case IT-02-54-T of 3 April 2003, as well as other

7 Prosecution witnesses" - in the footnote you refer to Senior Lieutenant

8 Zoran Primic - "it cannot be concluded that fire from JNA mortars and

9 artillery and other naval pieces was primarily directed to Dubrovnik Old

10 Town as its primary target."

11 Sir, first, are you aware that Zoran Primic's statement was not

12 admitted into evidence in this case? Are you aware of that, sir?

13 A. I had that piece of information, and I had the statement available

14 to me. I had the complete statement of Nojko Marinovic, including

15 diagrams, the layout of the city of Dubrovnik where he in his own hand

16 indicated the disposition of firing positions of the Croatian forces.

17 Q. I'm not trying to be rude, Doctor, just a simple question. Were

18 you aware that Zoran Primic's statement was not admitted as a piece of

19 evidence in this case? Just are you aware?

20 A. Until this moment, no.

21 Q. And are you also aware or would you accept that Zoran Primic was

22 not a witness in this case? His testimony is not before this Tribunal.

23 Would you accept that?

24 A. I accept that. But I had in my hands an official document of the

25 ICTY about his statement to the investigators.

1 Q. Sir, you indicated that your primary sources, because you relied

2 primarily on the basis of information of Nojko Marinovic and Zeljko Soldo,

3 are you aware that those people that you primarily relied on were not

4 witnesses in this case? Or will you accept from me today that these were

5 not witnesses in this case?

6 A. Sir, please, based on what were we supposed to make this expert

7 report to present it to you today if not the documents we received from

8 the Tribunal, or rather the Defence team with in its turn received it from

9 the Tribunal. You're really asking me impossible questions. How was I

10 supposed to make an expert report without any documents?

11 Q. Sir, let me ask you some questions. When I finish, Defence

12 counsel will ask you questions, and you'll be able to explain whatever you

13 would like. But would you please answer my questions, sir. Would you

14 accept from me, and actually having monitored this case, you've indicated

15 you've monitored this case, you should be aware that Nojko Marinovic and

16 Zeljko Soldo were not witnesses in this case. Isn't that correct?

17 A. That is correct. I have not heard them in this case, and I was

18 surprised, especially after the testimony of Mr. Negodic, that the

19 commander of artillery should know better what the situation in Dubrovnik

20 was than the commander of the city's defence.

21 Q. Okay. And are you also aware that those statements that you read,

22 their statements to the OTP, have not been admitted as evidence in this

23 case? Are you aware of that, sir?

24 A. I'm hearing this from you for the first time. I had opportunity

25 while monitoring this case of hearing from you, or rather the Office of

1 the Prosecutor, that the final decision whether to forego

2 Nojko Marinovic's testimony has not been made. So to date, I have not

3 been informed that Nojko Marinovic's definitively ruled out from this

4 case. Listening to you, I know that it is in the process of

5 consideration, and I'm just trying to explain now what I'm aware of and

6 what I'm not.

7 Q. Just, please, just answer my question so we can finish and we can

8 finish today the cross-examination. Are you aware that the statements of

9 Nojko Marinovic, Zeljko Soldo, Zoran Primic have not been introduced as

10 evidence in this case? Are you aware of that? Just yes or no.

11 A. While I was making my expert report, I was not aware that they

12 were not introduced as witnesses because handling official documents of

13 the Tribunal.

14 Q. Fine, no problem with that, sir. Are you aware that

15 Nojko Marinovic's testimony in that case, the numbers you referred to,

16 that's the Milosevic case, that Nojko Marinovic's testimony in the

17 Milosevic case, the transcripts of that testimony have not been introduced

18 in this case? Are you aware of that? His Milosevic testimony --

19 A. I know -- or rather, it is logical that that transcript has not

20 been introduced in this case. But the reason why we quoted that case is

21 the fact that Nojko Marinovic fully confirmed in that other case the

22 statement he gave in writing to this Tribunal in year 2001, and for me it

23 was a basis for concluding that Nojko Marinovic spoke the truth on two

24 occasions.

25 Q. Sir, my question isn't your view of Nojko Marinovic's veracity.

1 My question is are you aware that Nojko Marinovic's testimony in the

2 Milosevic case has not been admitted in this case? Just yes or no.

3 A. I'm hearing from you now, today, that you are not introducing even

4 Nojko Marinovic in this case. And therefore, it follows logically that

5 you are not going to introduce this second part either. I heard

6 personally at the end of the cross-examination by the Prosecution that the

7 final decision on whether Nojko Marinovic will be a witness or not has not

8 been made yet. So for us who are doing the expert report, the possibility

9 was still relevant.

10 Q. All I'm saying is you know now that Nojko Marinovic's Milosevic

11 case testimony has not been admitted. Now, sir, you've -- now, sir, you

12 mentioned Mr. Primic in footnote 74.

13 A. 74.

14 Q. Yes. And that you indicated on that same page, and that's part of

15 the conclusion, you've indicated that Mr. Primic was commander of the

16 mortars in Bogosica Park and fired 3.000 mortar shells on that date.

17 Having read Mr. Primic's statement, does he not indicate at page 5 that he

18 was not at Bogosica Park on that date, and why didn't you state that in

19 your document, that Mr. Primic states that he was not at Bogosica Park on

20 that date?

21 A. I don't know whether this translation is correct. What it says

22 here is Zoran Primic was commander of the battery of the first group of

23 mortars located in Bogosica Park, and then there is a mistake. It says

24 that on that day, he fired 3.000 shells. That's written in the B/C/S.

25 However, I saw later that in the original English, it says 300 shells.

1 Therefore, I made a correction from 3.000 to 300. The mistake I made

2 originated from the translation error.

3 Q. Okay. Sir, you're aware that according to the testimony of -- or

4 are you aware of the testimony in this case from Mr. Negodic as well as

5 the statement which you relied on from Mr. Primic, he indicates that he

6 was not at Bogosica Park at that date and that the mortars at

7 Bogosica Park did not fire on that date. Isn't that correct?

8 A. I cannot agree with you for the following reason: Although you do

9 not acknowledge or recognise Nojko Marinovic at this moment,

10 Nojko Marinovic clearly says that in Bogosica Park there were

11 82-millimetre mortars.

12 Q. [Previous interpretation continues]....

13 A. Allow me to tell you --

14 Q. He has not testified in this case and his evidence isn't before

15 this Chamber. You relied on this document, sir, and in this document he

16 states on page 5, "My two mortars that fired at Srdj were located in a

17 small soccer field behind the SDK building. I had moved them a day or two

18 before. My other two mortar teams in Bogosica Park did not fire that day.

19 I remained with the two mortar teams behind the SDK building." In any of

20 the footnotes relating to Zoran Primic, you did not state that he was

21 not -- he did not fire from Bogosica Park and that he indicates there was

22 no firing from Bogosica Park on that day. Isn't that correct?

23 A. Sir, you are claiming that there was no firing position of

24 82-millimetre mortars in Bogosica Park ever --

25 Q. Sir, the document you relied upon is making that claim. But did

1 you put that in any footnote? All I'm asking is did you place in a

2 footnote that the document you are relying on states there was no firing

3 from Bogosica Park? Then we can take a break if the Court allows us.

4 A. Please, here in footnote number 74, you are making a linkage

5 between two things. In footnote 74, it says: "statement by Senior

6 Lieutenant Zoran Primic, commander of the first group of mortars in

7 Bogosica Park. On the 6th of December, he fired 3.000, or rather 300 on

8 JNA positions, 300 shells." And you are now telling me that I said that

9 he fired 300 shells, or rather 3.000 as it says here.

10 Q. Sir, my question to you is, do you state in that footnote or

11 anywhere else this person who I am relying upon has indicated that he did

12 not fire from Bogosica Park on that date, or that mortars didn't fire from

13 Bogosica Park on that date? Do you state that in that footnote or

14 anywhere else where you mention Zoran Primic? That's the only question I

15 have for you. Yes or no?

16 A. Please, I am relying on Zoran Primic that he fired 3.000 shells on

17 that day. It was -- it's an enormous quantity, and I found it surprising.

18 I later received information that it was only 300 shells in total and that

19 was corroborated by Negodic as well.

20 Why would I invoke -- I never considered or said anywhere that

21 Zoran Primic fired from Bogosica Park on the 6th of December. Where did

22 you see that in my text? Nowhere is that statement made.

23 Q. Sir, my question is did you place in a footnote that Zoran Primic

24 who you're referring to and relying upon has indicated that firing did not

25 occur from Bogosica Park on December 6th, 1991? That's all I'm asking.

1 Did you place in a footnote that Zoran Primic, who you are relying upon,

2 has stated that firing did not occur from Bogosica Park on 6 December,

3 1991?

4 A. I do not see -- I do not see where I analysed who was doing the

5 shooting and who participated from the Croatian firing positions on the

6 6th of December. We did not carry out that kind of analysis anywhere.

7 The entire expert analysis is based on the following: If one fires from

8 these firing positions in the counterattack, the following thing will

9 happen. And if this does happen in the counterattack, it happens for such

10 and such reasons. Nowhere is it stated explicitly -- I mean, I did not go

11 into an analysis of what Primic had said or what Nojko Marinovic had said

12 or what was stated here by Ivan Negodic before this Honourable Trial

13 Chamber because then we would go into the following analysis, whether all

14 of that had to be analysed generally speaking because Nojko Marinovic or

15 rather --

16 Q. Sir, you're not answering my question.

17 JUDGE PARKER: We will pause now, Mr. Weiner.

18 Mr. Petrovic.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to ask to

20 look at the B/C/S version of the expert analysis, that is page 92. It is

21 page 4931 in the evidence. I am going to read this footnote now. It is

22 footnote 74. It says: "Statement by Zoran Primic".

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down. It's impossible

24 to follow at this pace.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, you're ahead of the interpreters.

1 Just go slowly.

2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. "First

3 group of mortars, 82 millimetres, DOS, on the 6th of December 1991 fired

4 3.000" and then there's a question mark, "mortar shells of 82 millimetres

5 at JNA positions."

6 So in the B/C/S version, first of all, there is this question

7 mark. That is the first thing I wish to draw your attention to. And

8 secondly, there is no mention of Bogosica Park. Perhaps in the process of

9 translation and the final processing of the text, this situation that my

10 learned friend has insisted upon actually happened. So please, look at

11 4931, that page. With the permission of the Honourable Trial Chamber, I

12 would like to say another thing at this point in time. It does not have

13 to do with this particular matter at all.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the core of this

16 expert analysis fully corresponds to the methodological approach that the

17 Prosecution expert applied in assessing the potential targets and the

18 potential firing positions and the dispersion effects in relation to these

19 potential targets or objectives. It is my understanding that the essence

20 is to understand how these potential targets were decided upon. This is

21 not evidence about whether these targets existed and whether the firing

22 positions from which fire was opened at these targets existed. This is a

23 series of assumptions that may or may not fit into what the facts are,

24 before this Honourable Trial Chamber. So there is a series of targets and

25 a series of positions.

1 So if fire was opened from a position at a target, then there is a

2 dispersion of a greater or lesser degree. The content of this expert

3 report, Your Honours, is not whether there was really firing, say, from

4 VP-1 at target number 3. This is just a group of assumptions which may be

5 of use to the Trial Chamber if they correspond to the evidence that

6 exists. So whether our expert got this information from Zoran Primic or

7 from the expert opinion of Jozo Poje, that is irrelevant. It may become

8 relevant if the expert opinion coincides with other things that the

9 Trial Chamber heard in these proceedings. And that would be it. Thank

10 you, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. But I understand

12 Mr. Weiner to be pursuing another point.

13 We will resume in 20 minutes.

14 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 3.58 p.m.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

17 MR. WEINER: Yes, thank you. First, Your Honour, I have those

18 pages, 2.364 and 65. I have ten sets, the ones that I read from the Galic

19 case today.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

21 MR. WEINER: You're welcome.

22 Q. Sir, I'd like to show you the copy of page 5 -- actually, the

23 whole statement of Zoran Primic which you referred to, page 5.

24 MR. WEINER: Mr. Usher, can the witness be shown.

25 Q. Now, can we look at page 5, sir.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And do you see the second-full paragraph "I then directed..." Do

3 you see that, sir? Do you see where this says that? I know you --

4 A. I see it. I can see it.

5 Q. I just want to read it, and just tell me if I'm reading it

6 correctly. "I then directed two of my mortars to fire on the fortress.

7 My two mortars that fired at Srdj were located in the small soccer field

8 behind the SDK building (I had moved them a day or two before). My other

9 two mortar teams in Bogosica Park did not fire that day. I remained with

10 the two mortar teams behind the SDK building."

11 Is that what it says, sir?

12 A. Excellent. That's what it says here.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 A. And that's why we looked at those positions.

15 Q. Now, could we move down three paragraphs where it begins, "At

16 Ploce..." It says: "At Ploce, we collected" --

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Could you go to the third sentence. It says: "I estimate" --

19 A. [In English] "I continued firing..." Is it that sentence? "I

20 estimated we fired 300 shells that day."

21 Q. It doesn't say that we fired 3.000 shells, isn't that correct?

22 A. [In English] Of course. But in Serbian translation, it is written

23 3.000. And I mentioned that it's a mistake.

24 Q. However, sir, in your conclusion on page 88, conclusion number 7,

25 if we want to go to your report in English, number 7 on page 88, you

1 state: "During the attack by JNA forces on Srdj on 6 December 1991, DOS

2 forces opened intense fire and fired around 3.000 mortar shells." And at

3 66, you refer to the Primic statement. In the next sentence you say: "In

4 such conditions, it is normal that JNA mortars fired at the firing

5 positions of DOS forces." "In such conditions," which you're referring to

6 the intense fire of approximately 3.000 shells. And you say "in such

7 conditions, it's normal the JNA" --

8 A. Even 300 shells is intensive fire. Please. I listened to

9 Negodic. He aimed mortars towards Srdj and his message was that he can

10 open fire at the fort, and he was satisfied with the fact that the shells

11 flew over the ridge and did not fall in front of the ridge of Mount Srdj.

12 But we can't really call it a mountain. It is a hill in view of its

13 altitude.

14 However, firing 300 shells around the fort of Srdj is a

15 considerable number of shells. I've told you that I learned this only

16 later. We learned this only later. That's why I said that it was a

17 mistake. I said that today. It's not that we intentionally used the

18 number 3.000 shells, but in the Serbian translation of Zoran Primic's

19 statement, it says 3.000 shells. I'm sorry I don't have this -- or

20 rather, maybe I do. Maybe I do have it on me now, this translation.

21 Q. So you based one of your conclusions on 3.000 shells. However, if

22 you figure 300 shells over a six-hour period, that's not intensive fire,

23 if we talk about multiple mortars, 300 shells over a six-hour period,

24 that's 50 mortars an hour. With multiple mortars, that's not many at all.

25 That's not intensive fire.

1 A. 300 shells is five combat kits, so that is a large quantity. But

2 sir, why are you overlooking the following: That in the footnotes of the

3 final conclusions, we put a question mark in parenthesis. Why do you not

4 take that into account? You keep ascribing this to me all the time, that

5 I took this 3.000 almost intentionally. I did not have the English text

6 to work from. I had the Serbian translation only. And I would finally

7 ask the Honourable Trial Chamber to allow me to say a few words about this

8 material that was submitted to me from the Galic trial. May I just say

9 something in relation to that.

10 Q. Your attorney can --

11 JUDGE PARKER: No. If I would just deal with the questions put to

12 you, Mr. Petrovic will re-examine you later. And if there's some matter

13 there that is considered important to the Defence of General Strugar, it

14 will be put to you. Thank you.

15 MR. WEINER:

16 Q. Sir, you further refer to two statements that you primarily relied

17 on to indicate that the Old Town was not a primary target of the JNA. And

18 you referred to, to support that, the statements of Zeljko Soldo and

19 Nojko Marinovic, according to your report. Are you aware, sir, that both

20 people that you relied upon, the two primary people you relied upon, Soldo

21 and Marinovic, both indicated in their reports that the Old Town -- that

22 the attack on the Old Town was intentional? Are you aware of that, sir,

23 having relied upon these reports?

24 A. Sir, I'm sorry. Where was it that we wrote this? Where was it

25 that we say that we rely on Zeljko Soldo and Nojko Marinovic's statements

1 that there were no attacks on the Old Town? We did not mention that

2 anywhere. Zeljko Soldo and Nojko Marinovic, their statements were only

3 used to establish the firing positions of the Croatian forces and the JNA,

4 nothing else. Not any assessment in terms of whether it was intentional

5 or unintentional --

6 Q. Sir, sir, let me read again your own statement, your general

7 conclusion on page 99. Why don't you look at it, too. In the English,

8 it's page 99 under "General conclusion." And you state -- I'll wait until

9 you get it.

10 A. No, no. [In English] 99 page?

11 Q. Page 99 in the English. It's under general conclusion. It says

12 "On the basis of analysing JNA forces' actions at Dubrovnik battleground

13 primarily on the basis of information that Prosecution witnesses

14 Nojko Marinovic and Zeljko Soldo gave to Tribunal representatives and also

15 in the testimony at the Tribunal by Nojko Marinovic in case IT-02-54-T of

16 3 April 2003 as well as other Prosecution witnesses, it cannot be

17 concluded that fire from JNA mortars and other artillery and naval pieces

18 was primarily directed toward Dubrovnik Old Town as its primary target."

19 Is that what you wrote, sir?

20 A. Yes. But sir, I beg your pardon, but you keep twisting this

21 conclusion of ours all the time. At the very outset, we said on the basis

22 of the testimony at the Tribunal by Nojko Marinovic and Zeljko Soldo we

23 defined the firing positions, and that is why we invoke this here yet

24 again because this is one of the points of departure of this analysis. We

25 did not analyse at all anywhere, or rather there is no mention of whether

1 this was done intentionally or unintentionally, on the basis of their

2 statements, I mean. The expert analysis looks at the weapons and how they

3 were fired. It does not look at the dynamics of the battle if you

4 understand what I'm saying.

5 Q. Sir, you indicated you based it on them. But however, let's take

6 it a step back. Did you indicate when you mentioned those two people that

7 both of those individuals indicated in their statements that the attack on

8 the Old Town by the JNA on the 6th of December 1991 was an intentional act

9 by the JNA? Did you mention that in either statement? Did you mention

10 that in a footnote or anywhere within your report, since you're relying

11 upon their statements?

12 A. Well, please, is it that you do not wish to understand what I'm

13 saying, or is it the interpreters who are misinterpreting what I'm saying?

14 This expert analysis did not look at witness statements at all from the

15 aspect of whether the Old Town was targeted or not. This is a technical,

16 ballistic analysis only, which analyses on the basis of witness statements

17 where firing positions were and whether there could have been individual

18 falls of individual shells into the Old Town. And I cannot give you

19 answers to these questions of yours which go into this other kind of

20 testimony in terms of whether somebody targeted the Old Town intentionally

21 or unintentionally.

22 Q. Sir, but your report indicates that it was basically incidental,

23 the Old Town, and that's why when you indicate that you relied upon these

24 people, that based on your reliance of these people, there's no proof that

25 it was intentional, that's incorrect because these people that you just

1 mention in that same sentence as saying it was not intentional have stated

2 that it was, in fact, intentional. Isn't that correct, sir?

3 Let me ask you this: Are you aware that two people whose

4 statements you have used --

5 A. Sir, please, I think it is not fair towards General

6 Nojko Marinovic or Zeljko Soldo to even ask the question whether they had

7 said the Old Town had been targeted intentionally or unintentionally if it

8 is the case that I never read a statement in that sense or used it in that

9 sense. The data they provided was only used for determining the position

10 of their forces and firing positions. And when I said I relied on this

11 testimony, I meant the number and location of artillery and mortar pieces

12 of the Croatian forces. I never read, and I'm not ascribing to

13 General Marinovic that he denied, in fact that he didn't say that the

14 Old Town was targeted intentionally. It wouldn't be even fair to this

15 Honourable Court.

16 MR. WEINER: Could the witness please be shown the statement that

17 he refers to of Zeljko Soldo, please. And also to save time, why don't we

18 show the Marinovic statement, too. Let's look at the Zeljko Soldo

19 statement, first.

20 Q. Can we look at page 7 of the Soldo statement. Sir, would you look

21 at the second full paragraph and let me read the first two sentences and

22 just tell me if I'm reading it correctly. "I think the attacks on

23 Dubrovnik and the Old Town in particular came about after the attack on

24 Srdj began to fail. There was a lot of frustration and anger among the

25 JNA, and I think the guns were simply turned on Dubrovnik in vengeance."

1 Is that what it says there, sir?

2 A. You did not interpret it correctly. It says here that an attack

3 occurred on the Old Town after the attack on Srdj fell through.

4 Q. I have a different translation. Could you read the second

5 sentence, too, please.

6 A. There was a lot of frustration and anger among the JNA. I think

7 that out of dissatisfaction and rage, they opened fire. Yes, that's what

8 he says. But I was not interested in that part at all because as I

9 said --

10 Q. Sir, I just asked you --

11 A. -- it was only and exclusively the first pages --

12 Q. Could you also look at the last paragraph. And I'm going to read

13 that along and just tell me if I'm reading it right. "The JNA took the

14 position afterward that the shelling of Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991 was

15 accidental or arbitrary. There was no way that this could have been the

16 case when the battalion commander, Kovacevic, and the VPS chief of staff,

17 Zec, were present at the forward command post at Zarkovica. From there,

18 they had a clear perspective of what was happening, and they were clearly

19 in control." Did I read that correctly, sir?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, could you go to the Nojko Marinovic statement, page 21,

22 please.

23 A. And I'm even more surprised now because you just said that they

24 had said there was no deliberate attack on Srdj on the condition that the

25 interpretation was correct.

1 Q. No deliberate attack -- they indicated it was a deliberate attack

2 on the Old Town, sir. That was my question to you previously about five

3 minutes ago.

4 If we look at page 21, Nojko Marinovic, who you refer to, says,

5 the first-full paragraph, first two sentences, "The three worst attacks on

6 the Old Town occurred on 23, 24 October, 8 to 13 November, and 6 December

7 1991. On all three occasions, nothing had occurred on the Croatian side

8 which justified targeting the Old Town." Is that what it says there?

9 A. That's what is written, yes.

10 Q. Now, let's go to the next paragraph. The third sentence.

11 Actually, I'll read the paragraph, the first three sentences: "By the end

12 of October, the JA had reached Zarkovica, the high ground southeast of the

13 city. From there, they had an unobstructed view over the Old Town and

14 much of Lapad. As a result, they could clearly see what they were

15 targeting and what was being hit, particularly in the Old Town." Is that

16 what it says?

17 A. It is written there.

18 Q. And just go to page 23, and that's the last one. We'll move on.

19 If we go to page 23, the second full paragraph, it says: "All of the

20 issues," that's how it begins. "All of these issues," I'm sorry. The

21 third sentence: "I think the attacks on the Old Town and on other

22 civilian targets in Dubrovnik were a sign of their desperation. They

23 needed to break the will of the people in the city, and they were willing

24 to suffer universal, international condemnation for a while to achieve

25 that objective."

1 Is that what it says there, sir?

2 A. It is written there. But may I ask you, why are you reading these

3 conclusions to me, an expert in ballistics, asking me to confirm whether

4 it is written there or not when I just mentioned the use of guns, and you

5 told me that I'm not qualified to speak to these questions. It would

6 follow that I'm not qualified to answer this either because it also goes

7 beyond my expertise and qualification. I'm not competent or called upon

8 to confirm witness statements or individual documents. I'm repeating to

9 you that we only used the data about the disposition of Croatian forces

10 and the firing positions of their weapons in making this report, including

11 the data provided by Zeljko Soldo, excluding his comments.

12 We made an expert report to establish whether something was

13 possible or not, and not to confirm the claims of JNA and some of their

14 generals about the setting of tyres on fire. The purpose of our expert

15 analysis was not to prove that there were no deliberate attacks on the

16 Old Town. If I had that objective in mind, I would have made a completely

17 different analysis on how the Old Town was targeted.

18 Q. But nowhere in your report do you state that the persons that you

19 rely upon, the statements that you rely upon, indicate that there was an

20 intentional attack upon the Old Town, an intentional shelling of the

21 Old Town. Nowhere in your report do you have a footnote or have that

22 statement. Isn't that correct, sir?

23 A. How can I mention it? We didn't go into those statements in that

24 way, and we didn't use them in that sense. We used them only for the

25 narrow purpose of our analysis.

1 Q. You'll be questioned by counsel, your attorney, and you can

2 explain. But my question to you is that nowhere --

3 A. It is not my lawyer, my attorney. I am an expert --

4 Q. Sir, the attorney who called you will allow you to explain some of

5 your views. But the question I have is nowhere in your report do you

6 state that the statements that you primarily relied on indicated that

7 there was an intentional attack upon the Old Town. Yes or no, sir? Very

8 simple question, yes or no.

9 A. Please, if we had mentioned that, if we had written it in that

10 sense, if we had written based on analysing the statement of

11 Nojko Marinovic, we would have written, yes, the Old Town was targeted

12 intentionally, deliberately. I cannot understand your unwillingness to

13 accept that we used strictly that part to determine the position of JNA

14 mortars based on Zeljko Soldo's statement and the position of Croatian

15 forces based on Nojko Marinovic's statement. I don't see why I should

16 have mentioned in the footnote that both Zeljko Soldo and Nojko Marinovic

17 considered that to have been a deliberate attack. We did not view their

18 statements in that sense from that perspective. We only used the data

19 they provided on their pieces.

20 Q. So, sir, you picked and chose within each of these statements the

21 data you wanted to use for your report. Isn't that correct, then? You

22 used data of Nojko Marinovic for one point; and for another point, you

23 used information from Soldo for another point --

24 A. Only technical data.

25 Q. Let's move on, sir. You describe in your report from pages 75 on

1 a certain vehicle which was given the name of Charlie. Isn't that

2 correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And you state in conclusion number 6 on page 88 in the English:

5 "What particularly contributed to a considerably higher number of

6 projectiles landing in the Dubrovnik Old Town was firing from DOS

7 artillery pieces mounted on Charlie, mobile vehicles which were fired from

8 the northern and western sides of the walls of the Old Town." And within

9 that, sir -- within that statement, you have a footnote indicating that

10 the statements were from Prosecution witnesses -- statements by

11 Prosecution witnesses Nojko Marinovic, Ivan Negodic, and Mujica Jusic, and

12 others.

13 Are you aware that those three individuals, those three named

14 persons, are not witnesses at this trial or have not been witnesses at

15 this trial? Are you aware of that, sir? I'm sorry, two of the three. We

16 know Negodic was a witness. But Nojko Marinovic and Mujica Jusic have not

17 been witnesses at this trial. Having monitored this case, are you aware

18 of that?

19 A. Following the trial on the internet, I heard about Mujica Jusic.

20 I heard about him, that he was in the crew of the mobile vehicle, or

21 rather a vehicle-mounted anti-aircraft machine-gun. Ivan Negodic

22 persistently denied that it was at all possible because he's not an expert

23 that firing was possible.

24 Q. Sir, we're running out of time. We have five minutes to go today,

25 and I'm trying to finish up as much as I can. Are you aware that two of

1 those gentlemen, sir - sorry to interrupt you - Nojko Marinovic and

2 Mujica Jusic were not witnesses in this trial? Are you just aware of

3 that? Yes or no.

4 A. Yes, yes, now I know.

5 Q. And are you also aware that those three witness statements from

6 Ivan Negodic, Mujica Jusic, and Nojko Marinovic have never been admitted

7 as evidence in this trial? Do you now understand that?

8 A. I don't know. I'm not aware of that. I'm hearing it from you now

9 for the first time, all the people who were players in these events are

10 not being taken into account at all. You are not taking into account the

11 statements of the defenders of Dubrovnik. I'm sorry, but I find that

12 unbelievable.

13 Q. Okay. Let's move on. Also, you refer later to this in a

14 conclusion on page 96. You refer to the Charlie vehicle again. And it

15 says: "The fact that at least two DOS artillery pieces were mounted on

16 lorries which changed positions after opening fire and which fired from

17 the immediate vicinity of the Old Town walls on the western and northern

18 sides resulted in an increased number of projectiles hitting parts of the

19 Old Town, and particularly the part of Dubrovnik outside the Old Town,

20 which resulted in a higher degree of destruction of this part of the town

21 of Dubrovnik."

22 First, is that what it states? Did I read it correctly?

23 A. Yes, you read it correctly. And below in the footnote --

24 Q. Yes, that's right. Below in the footnote - we're going to get to

25 that next - which it doesn't -- the footnote isn't represented in the text

1 itself, but it appears to go -- obviously it goes with that paragraph. It

2 says: "Statement by Witness Slobodan Simonovic of 20 June and 22

3 September, 2000 that four houses were damaged in his street because a

4 lorry-mounted weapon had changed positions." Now, once again, having

5 monitored this case, you are aware that Slobodan Simonovic was not a

6 witness in this case? You know that?

7 A. Well, I know from you now. But this statement of his was present,

8 was available just as all the previous statement of Negodic, Primic,

9 Marinovic, and others. We had official documents through the Tribunal.

10 Q. Okay. And these documents -- this document of Slobodan Simonovic,

11 not only was he not here at this trial as a witness, his statement, his

12 statement was not admitted as evidence. Are you aware of that? Or are

13 you just learning that right now?

14 A. I'm learning it from you now. The only thing I heard before at

15 the end of the examination of Prosecution witnesses, I heard that

16 Nojko Marinovic was still not decided upon. But the moment I got some

17 documentation through the Tribunal, I thought that it would be considered

18 and reviewed before this Tribunal as official.

19 Q. Okay. Now, sir, on page 76 of your report at footnote 56, I just

20 want to do this very briefly, you refer to a Witness Samardzic, but it

21 pretty much contains the same information as that from Slobodan Simonovic.

22 Are you referring to Slobodan Simonovic there? Is that just a mistake?

23 A. Yes, it's an error. It's about the same person. It is the

24 statement of Simonovic because it coincides, five houses were destroyed,

25 and he was a member of the corps of home guards, ZNG, he was speaking

1 about those Charlie weapons that would fire a number of rounds and then

2 leave, and then 10 minutes later the JNA would open fire, and that's how

3 it came about that these several houses in the vicinity of his own were

4 destroyed. We used only that part because, in fact, Charlie existed.

5 Q. And sir, you used only that part of Slobodan Simonovic's statement

6 because if you look at that statement he never saw Charlie on December 6th

7 and he never saw Charlie in any position north of the Old Town walls.

8 Isn't that correct?

9 A. Well, it is not said explicitly the 6th of December here. The

10 conclusions say that if fire had been opened from a certain weapon such as

11 Charlie, mobile weapons that are in the vicinity of the Old Town, and if

12 you remember anything within a 500-metre diameter endangers the Old Town,

13 then it's logical that if they opened fire from locations closer to the

14 Old Town than 500 metres, that would increase the number of projectiles

15 that would land -- that could land into the Old Town.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, we're going to have to interrupt you

17 there. I know you're close to finishing, but that will have to be in the

18 morning.

19 MR. WEINER: Thank you.

20 JUDGE PARKER: We will resume at 9.30 tomorrow morning.

21 [The witness stands down]

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.35 p.m.,

23 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of July,

24 2004, at 9.30 a.m.

25