1 Thursday, 22 July 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.40 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. I apologise that we were delayed a
7 little coming in.
8 Good morning to you, Mr. Vilicic. If I could remind you --
9 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
10 JUDGE PARKER: -- the affirmation you took still applies.
11 Mr. Weiner.
12 MR. WEINER: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
13 Mr. Vilicic.
14 WITNESS: JANKO VILICIC [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Weiner: [Continued]
17 Q. Mr. Vilicic, we have 30 minutes or maybe even less than 30 minutes
18 to go. We could move very quickly if when I ask you questions, "are you
19 aware," if you could just yes or no if you're aware of a certain subject.
20 I'll be asking you for your opinion at certain times, and then you can
21 expand and offer your opinion and explanations. That's fine. If you can
22 just please try and answer the questions in as short an answer as
23 possible, we can get this done very quickly.
24 Yesterday, we left discussing the vehicle named Charlie. And the
25 statement of Slobodan Simonovic that you cited in your report. Do you
1 recall that? We left discussing those subjects or we ended the day
2 discussing those subjects.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And you know, sir, that in the Simonovic statement, the
5 Slobodan Simonovic statement, he does not ever state that Charlie was
6 located just north of the Old Town walls. You know that?
7 A. Yes, he didn't mention that. Only I don't know which location you
8 are referring particularly. If you are talking about C-6, I said that
9 that was the target that we had taken as a mobile weapon, which is at the
10 location 500 metres from the walls. And we discussed whether in that
11 particular case the shells fell inside the city walls. We named it
12 Charlie, but in fact that was C-6 because nowhere in any report there was
13 any mention of any weapon at that particular location.
14 Q. And when you say "at that particular location," you're indicating
15 there was no mention of any weapon north of the Old Town?
16 A. North of the Old Town was a vehicle, that is 100 metres north to
17 the Old Town. And I heard that throughout the testimonies here. I dubbed
18 it Charlie, this location. But it involves C-5 and C-6 because that was
19 at 100 metres before that we had C-4 and C-3 at 200 and 300 metres. And
20 as I said recently, we assumed C-6 at 500 metres in order to estimate
21 whether this particular location would jeopardise the Old Town or not.
22 Q. Mr. Simonovic, Slobodan Simonovic, never states that he saw
23 Charlie north of the Old Town. He never states that in his statement.
24 Isn't that correct, sir?
25 A. [No audible response]
1 Q. As you know, Mr. Simonovic didn't live in the Old Town, he lived
2 well west of the Old Town. And that's where he saw Charlie. Isn't that
4 A. Yes. But I never established a link between Simonovic and
5 Charlie. I mentioned Simonovic for the reason of his saying that the
6 vehicle had come to their street and shot from there, and then went back
7 again. It was a vehicle-mounted weapon, and that is the type when those
8 four or five buildings were demolished.
9 Q. Okay. And you also know that Mr. Simonovic never saw Charlie in
10 the area of the Old Town on the 6th of December 1991 because he was back
11 at his home or in a shelter near his home far away from the Old Town.
12 Mr. Simonovic never indicates in his report that you cited that he saw
13 Charlie on December 6th. Isn't that correct?
14 A. Please, I'm saying again that I never connected Simonovic and the
15 location 100 metres north of the town or the C-6 location. There is no
16 relation whatsoever between that and Simonovic.
17 Q. Are you aware, sir, that three Defence witnesses who claimed to
18 have seen Charlie have placed it in Lapad and do not mention seeing it
19 north of the Old Town in December 1991? Those are witnesses Novakovic,
20 Lemal, and Pavisic. Are you aware of that?
21 A. I am not because I was very busy by complying with your request to
22 provide an English version of the annex, and I really have no information
23 whatsoever about any testimonies given in the past two weeks. Therefore,
24 I didn't have an opportunity to listen to either Lemal, Novakovic, and I
25 don't know which was the third person that you mentioned. Primic or
2 Q. Pavisic.
3 A. Pavisic, no I had no opportunity to hear that testimony.
4 Q. Now you're further aware -- having monitored the case, you're
5 aware Mr. Negodic places Charlie in Lapad in December, one vehicle named
6 Charlie in Lapad? Are you aware of that?
7 A. Yes, I heard Negodic's testimony, and I did that very carefully.
8 I'm not sure whether I managed to hear every single word because
9 connections, especially audio connections sometimes fail. But I did hear
10 his whole testimony because it was particularly interesting for this
11 expert analysis, and that is why I invoked his testimony.
12 Q. Now, are you aware that the only person who claims to have seen a
13 single vehicle named Charlie, not multiple vehicles as you mentioned in
14 your report, but a single vehicle named Charlie was the witness who
15 preceded you, who claimed to have seen it north of the Old Town on
16 December 6th, Mr. Nesic? Are you aware of that?
17 A. No, I'm not aware. I was here in The Hague when he testified, but
18 I had no chance to listen to his testimony.
19 Q. Now, sir, you concluded that fire from the Charlie vehicles
20 located - and this is on page 99 - that fire from the Charlie vehicles
21 located north and west of the Old Town increased the number of shells
22 falling into the Old Town. Didn't you make that conclusion in your
23 report, sir?
24 A. Please, I keep saying that we should speak in conditional. If
25 Charlie vehicles were operative, or rather the weapons were operating from
1 vehicles to the west or north of the town, that contributed to an
2 increased number of the shells falling. Practically, the whole report,
3 the paper was prepared in order to serve the Trial Chamber when they
4 consider various statements made, the majority of which I had heard except
5 for the last one that you mentioned, that there is a possibility to judge
6 from a professional point of view what would happen if some conditions
7 were met. That is how I perceived this analysis, that its terms of
8 reference were to provide a basis to judge the testimony of various
9 witnesses. If a witness said that Charlie was at a certain location, to
10 decide whether it posed a danger to the Old Town. That is why we took C-6
11 and assumed that if Charlie was not officially defined as such, so if it
12 was positioned or any other weapon was positioned, at least at 500 metres
13 from the Old Town would not jeopardise the Old Town. So this is the
14 purpose of this expert analysis. And that was our intention while we were
15 preparing it. Our intention was not to say yes, there was a Charlie, or
16 no there wasn't a Charlie. We worked on the assumptions if fire from VP-1
17 was opened at C-4, C-5, this and that would happen under certain
18 conditions. So please understand that I am speaking conditionally, and
19 you are talking in the present tense all the time.
20 And you claim that Charlie was there. I never claimed that. I
21 just made an assumption that had Charlie been there, this and that could
22 have happened.
23 Q. All right. Sir, the reason I asked you that question is because
24 on page 88, your conclusion number 6, is not in a -- written in a
25 conditional manner. What you write is: "What particularly contributed to
1 a considerably higher number of projectiles landing in the Dubrovnik
2 Old Town was firing from DOS artillery pieces mounted on Charlie mobile
3 vehicles, which fired from the northern and western sides of the walls of
4 Dubrovnik Old Town." Now, let's use your conditional "if." Since there
5 is conflicting evidence as to Charlie, if we assume that Charlie was not
6 present, that conclusion's no longer valid. We would have to find some
7 other reasons for those shells landing in the Old Town, for those
8 considerable higher number of projectiles landing in the Old Town. Isn't
9 that correct?
10 A. Please, the Trial Chamber will hopefully, if it concludes that
11 there was no weapon at this location, of course I will rule out this kind
12 of conclusion. However, if there was a weapon at that location, and given
13 the weather conditions and the proximity, what we wrote would have
14 happened. So my conclusion was made on the basis that if Charlie was
15 operating there, the other things were operating on the other location,
16 weather conditions were there as they were, this would only contribute to
17 an increased number of shells falling into the Old Town. So please,
18 perceive this in that manner.
19 Q. I understand that. But look at my assumption. If Charlie was not
20 there, we would have to find another reason for that increased number of
21 shells landing in the Old Town. Isn't that correct? If we assume that
22 Charlie or what you say multiple Charlies were not present on that day, we
23 would have to find some other reason for multiple shells landing in the
24 Old Town. Do you accept that?
25 A. That will be up to the Trial Chamber hopefully to establish. It's
1 not our business. But specifically, there were only two Charlie
2 positions. An aircraft gun was at 100 metres north of town. Maybe I made
3 a mistake. Instead of saying Charlie, I should have said anti-aircraft
4 gun, and C-6 was a kind of conditional firing position that I studied only
5 from the aspect whether it posed a danger to the town from that particular
6 location. And I said that a firing position at 500 metres from the Old
7 Town did not pose a risk to the Old Town.
8 Q. Let's move to two other locations, sir. You indicated that shells
9 from JNA mortars fired at Bogosica Park and Ploce also landed in the
10 Old Town. And you based those locations on the statements of
11 Nojko Marinovic and Mr. Negodic. At trial, sir, Ivan Negodic testified
12 that those positions were not active on December 6th, as you know
13 listening to the case.
14 Now, again, let's assume that there was no Croatian presence or no
15 Croatian firing from Bogosica Park and Ploce on December 6. Your
16 conclusion that those locations were primary targets would no longer be
17 valid. Isn't that correct, sir?
18 A. Well, one cannot make this kind of conclusion. When the Croatian
19 forces intensified their fire and if firing positions had not been located
20 that had earlier been active, it is only logical that your primary target
21 would be the positions that had been active up until then. The C-4
22 position marked by Mr. Negodic on the map 03340719 in annex number 4
23 clearly indicates that given the objectives of that firing position, the
24 focus of the attack came precisely from that location that it should have
25 covered in defence. If you look at Zarkovica, Zarkovica covers
1 practically everything. Brgat, Bosanka, and one of the main direction of
2 attacks of infantry JNA units on that day, according to all indications,
3 was focussed on this particular position. So it is incomprehensible that
4 out of the total of six or seven Croatian mortars, four of them were out
5 of action under such circumstances.
6 So if Negodic's statement is truthful, then your conclusion is
7 valid. I hope that we are -- want to establish the truth and what
8 actually happened.
9 Q. That's correct, sir. Now, sir, are you aware that two Defence
10 witnesses have alleged that JNA mortar fire was directed against alleged
11 targets in the Old Town, and that's Mr. Vlado Pepic and Jovan Drljan. If
12 objects or areas within the Old Town were targeted, wouldn't that change
13 your estimate as to the number of shells falling in the Old Town? These
14 two people have testified.
15 A. This is the first time that I hear of that, and I'm simply
16 surprised at that. Those must have been laymen statements. If mortars
17 are used to target objectives inside the town where you have very narrow
18 streets, it is beyond comprehension, this is totally illogical, both
19 militarily and otherwise, to shoot at roofs in order to hit someone on the
21 Q. Sir, Vlado Pepic was the observer for the 130-millimetre weapons.
22 He was on Zarkovica looking down. Jovan Drljan, and I'll spell the last
23 name, D-r-l-j-a-n, was a soldier. And these were two JNA soldiers. And
24 they indicated there were flashes seen in the Old Town, or one did, and
25 they fired mortars, Maljutkas, cannons or artillery, fired at those
1 objects in the area of the Old Town and struck buildings. And my question
2 to you is wouldn't that increase the numbers of shells that landed in the
3 Old Town if they fired at things they thought were there?
4 A. Excuse me, how it is possible for one soldier to fire from
5 different weapons systems. This Drljan person, if he was operating a
6 mortar, he could only have shot from a mortar. If he was handling a
7 rocket launcher, then he could have only fired a rocket. And there were
8 no artillery pieces active on that day, that had been established
9 definitively, that not a single artillery projectile had fallen on the
10 Old Town, and there was no artillery activity. On the contrary, it was
11 established that there was a prohibition on artillery fire.
12 If you want my expert opinion independently of what they stated,
13 Maljutka can only shoot at the walls of the Old Town, nothing else. There
14 is no chance for a single operator to throw a rocket inside the Old Town.
15 I know the guidance system very well. You cannot guide that rocket and
16 then just drop it there. It has to be a vertical target relative to the
17 rocket launcher. That rocket does not have a so-called curved trajectory.
18 It is introduced by straight-line trajectories.
19 Q. Sir, once again, JNA witnesses have indicated that - I probably
20 used the wrong word with artillery - cannon fire, Maljutka fire, and
21 mortar fire was directed at the Old Town.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. This is
23 not in evidence. Cannon fire has not been established, nor has that been
24 heard in this courtroom, and my learned friend will certainly remember
1 JUDGE PARKER: I think the question is what description is given
2 to the weapon at Zarkovica, if I'm right, Mr. Weiner.
3 MR. WEINER: Correct.
4 JUDGE PARKER: I understand it to be an artillery piece, not a
6 MR. WEINER: Correct.
7 JUDGE PARKER: I am not entirely sure, but there is evidence of
8 that having been used, I believe, Mr. Petrovic.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with all due respect,
10 it seems to me that my learned friend had mentioned JNA witnesses. He
11 speaks of JNA witnesses who had seen cannon fire, Maljutka fire, and
12 mortar fire. That was the essence of my objection. And you can see that,
13 Your Honours, on line 9 -- on page 9, line 18.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Once again, Mr. Petrovic, inevitably, all of us
15 struggle in our precise memories of what occurred, and all of these
16 matters have to be checked. Counsel have the advantage that they will
17 have been looking at evidence on a particular point. But my impression is
18 that if one leaves aside the Prosecution evidence and looks only at the
19 Defence witnesses, there is evidence of three types of weapons being used
20 from Zarkovica. But I may be wrong. That's just my present
22 MR. WEINER:
23 Q. Sir, there is evidence from witnesses that served in the JNA on --
24 JUDGE PARKER: Let us take the Defence witnesses.
25 MR. WEINER: Defence witnesses, yes.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 Q. On pages -- one is 7711 through 7713, which is Jovan Drljan, with
2 a D, D-r-l-j-a-n. And Vlado Pepic at 7502 through 7503. That shells,
3 mortar shells - between the two - they talk about mortar shells, Maljutkas
4 were fired or landed in the Old Town as a result of what they thought to
5 be targets. My question to you is if those shells --
6 JUDGE PARKER: Let's not just blur over the point. From what
7 you're saying, that doesn't extend to the third type of weapon at
9 MR. WEINER: I'll read what Mr. Pepin [sic] said for the record,
11 JUDGE PARKER: Pepic.
12 MR. WEINER: Pepic.
13 Q. "And what targets were fired at from Zarkovica?"
14 "As I started to say" - this is from page 7502 from Mr. Pepic;
15 this is answer - "as I started to say, the firing came from targets, fire
16 targets from a number of directions. Whether from Strincijera or the
17 slopes of Srdj and the firing came, what I saw the firing came from the
18 Maljutka laser weapon, the 9K-11. It was targeting the mortar,
19 anti-cannon gun to the right and the mortar to the left and the mortar
20 that I saw firing on the left-hand side on the street of the Stradun."
21 And he had seen some flashes on the left-hand side, and he assumed
22 it was a mortar.
23 What Mr. Drljan says, on page 7711:
24 "Q. Apart from that, did you see anything else in the
25 Old Town?
1 A. I saw a couple shells landing very close to the
2 place where this mortar had been pulled out earlier.
3 Q. You saw mortars landing if I understand you
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Where did it land?
7 A. On the Stradun street."
8 And then they asked if you can please show the approximate
9 position. "On the street itself. It's very close to the building from
10 which the mortar had been pulled out and then been pulled in."
11 And then Mr. Nesic testified that on the walls of the Old Town,
12 there was a southern wall to the right of St. Blaise's church. I think
13 it's St. Stjepan's tower, that they used a Maljutka or a recoilless
14 weapon, and also on the walls they used Maljutka or recoilless weapons.
15 My question to you is if objects were targeted within the
16 Old Town, and you're familiar with that congested nature of the Old Town,
17 wouldn't that increase the number of shells landing in the Old Town?
18 Wouldn't that increase your conclusion as to the number of shells landing
19 in the Old Town? Wouldn't you have to raise your estimate?
20 A. No. And here is why. If I understand you correctly, and if the
21 interpretation was correct, all the weapons which you mentioned were on
22 the Croatian side. The anti-armour company, I know this very well, had at
23 Zarkovica in their weaponry six recoilless gun, two Maljutka rocket
24 launchers, and I believe they had a 60-millimetre mortar. So they were
25 able to shoot only from recoilless guns as we discussed yesterday, and
1 with Maljutka rockets. Neither of these weapons are able to shoot at
2 indirect targets. They cannot shoot at targets under cover. They can
3 only shoot at targets in the direct line of sight.
4 And they cause the kind of damage that was caused by mortar
5 shells. First of all, these are not destructive projectiles; they are
6 cumulative-charged projectile. They do not have the same destructive
7 power. They don't have the high-impact power, and they could not shoot at
8 targets within the Old Town. If they saw, for instance, something on the
9 tower or on the walls or around the Old Town, they could have fired at
10 that. But they could not have shot at a target within the walls of the
11 Old Town, apart from targets that were in the direct line of sight from
12 Zarkovica. And the only thing of that kind you could have seen would have
13 been along the Stradun or in front of the walls or in front of the fish
14 shop. Those are the targets that they could see.
15 So these assumptions do not affect my expert opinion because we
16 even stated clearly that we have no data for the hits on the walls or the
17 towers. We only had data that mortar shells fell within the walls,
18 damaging roofs or maybe the Stradun. I didn't encounter a single case
19 where a projectile had managed to fall between the houses in one of those
20 narrow streets. They damaged, for instance, ornaments at a higher level
21 than ground level.
22 MR. WEINER: Counsel.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt
25 this discussion. On page 12, look at the answer from line 12 onwards. It
1 is not complete. There are certain parts of the answer missing, so I
2 would appreciate it when we revise the transcript, especially the part
3 where the witness said that from Zarkovica one could have shot at targets
4 on the Stradun, if such had been detected. That part of the answer was
5 not recorded, but we can easily check on the tape.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that, Mr. Petrovic. Part of the
7 problem is the speed and the length at which Mr. Vilicic speaks. The
8 interpreters and the transcript cannot keep up.
9 While we are paused, can I clear up a couple of matters that have
10 me confused. Do I understand your evidence to be that the Maljutka is a
11 line-of-sight weapon?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
13 JUDGE PARKER: When you say it can't fire at targets in the Old
14 Town, you mean it can only fire at targets that can be seen from the
15 firing position?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, sir. Guiding a rocket
17 requires keeping a target in your sight constantly. The operator
18 constantly keeps the crosshair on the target and keeps it higher than the
19 target up to 100 to 200 metres before the target. And only when he
20 reaches that distance from the target, he lowers it. In other words, he
21 cannot shoot at a target behind the wall because it is a straight-line
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. That helps me to understand what you
24 were saying. And the second matter is all the evidence tends to confirm
25 what you indicated a moment ago. There was also a 60-millimetre mortar at
1 Zarkovica. It could be fired in such a way as to target targets that were
2 not in sight, but behind a weapon or below the line of sight. Is that
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but please, a 60-millimetre
5 mortar has maximum range of 1700 metres. Or rather, it depends. We have
6 two types of weapons. The JNA had two types of mortars. So in annex --
7 in one of the annexes to our expert opinion, we stated the performances of
8 these weapons. And the first weapon in Annex 20 is a mortar that has
9 initial speed -- in fact, its maximum range is 2.357 metres, whereas I
10 know an old model had only 1.700 metres which was later increased. And
11 now it has this maximum range of 2.357 metres with the fourth-last
12 increment. So at the distance we discussed, that mortar could have fired
13 at a target, let's say, 100 metres in front of the Old Town. But the
14 shells could have not reached into the Old Town because if you look at
15 where the Maljutkas were positioned, and I also have the exact location of
16 recoilless guns, from that location to Old Town, the distance is
17 2.300-and-something metres. So they were somewhere next to the ancillary
18 observation point of the battalion commander, and that location is over
19 2.300 metres.
20 So at a stretch, a shell could have fallen somewhere between the
21 ships. It could have fallen before the shore. It's -- the impact of this
22 is like the combined effect of two hand grenades. That's the combined
23 effect of this 60-millimetre shell. So they could not have had this
24 destructive effect. They could have hit the roof, and maybe broken some
25 tiles, but no important destruction.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, the part of the witness's
2 answer that the counsel said was missing is on page 13, line 5.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, interpreters, for that.
4 I take it the maximum range specification of a mortar is given on
5 the assumption that both the firing position and the target are at the
6 same elevation.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This maximum range is true of
8 table values. That means when the target and the firing position are at
9 the same altitude, and the curvature of the trajectory is minimally --
10 minimally increases the range. They were at a height of 250 metres, which
11 can increase the range by several dozen metres. I have this data here.
12 Up to Kasa, it's 2.250 metres practically. So there was no chance that
13 that mortar could have reached up to the Old Town.
14 JUDGE PARKER: The mortar maximum range of 2.357 would be
15 increased, according to the firing table graph at figure 2.25 in your
16 annex 20. Is that right? According to the elevation of the firing point
17 above the target?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
20 Mr. Weiner, I'm sorry I interrupted. But two matters had left me
22 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honour, on the
24 chart we can clearly see in this addendum that the range is increased very
25 little. It is a negligible increase in range due to the difference in
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 MR. WEINER:
4 Q. Now, sir, as these witnesses indicated that mortar shells --
5 MR. WEINER: Sorry.
6 Q. Sir, there was evidence that fire was -- that mortar fire entered
7 the Old Town targeting what was alleged to be a mortar. Wouldn't that
8 increase the number of shells that would have landed in the Old Town,
9 increase it above your estimates? Increase the number of shells?
10 A. If it is established that the Old Town was targeted intentionally,
11 of course that would increase the number of projectiles. However, in our
12 expert opinion, we contemplated shooting only at targets outside the
13 Old Town.
14 Q. I know that, sir.
15 A. That's what we contemplated. It is logical that if the objective
16 was to shoot at the Old Town, and I have a chart here, you would have a
17 totally different picture of the projectiles landed and that picture in my
18 expert opinion, 8.1, if you remember, it would look completely different.
19 Q. Now, sir, if you were targeting a single mortar in the Old Town,
20 that would not have caused all of that roof damage that we see in the
21 Old Town. Isn't that correct?
22 A. To tell you the truth, I did not see all that damage because the
23 damage described was not described in such a way as to say, for instance,
24 the roof was damaged or the first floor was crashed through. We only
25 reviewed damage in terms of the first, second, third degree with the
1 exception of the first degree where the house is completely demolished,
2 the following definitions were given. Several structures were damaged up
3 to damage on the facade. The descriptions were not such as to lead me to
4 conclude that there was a great number of roofs damaged. From the
5 analysis that we made and objectively, knowing the efficiency, it was
6 exactly established how much damage was done. It could have been 70 to 80
7 on the outside, not as it was initially written in one report, 450.
8 But all this is conditionally speaking. My entire analysis is
9 based on the "if this, then that." According to the rules of service,
10 according to the norms, if a mortar was shooting at the Old Town foot
11 destruction of such a target, according to norm number 17, at least 200
12 shells would have to have been fired. And that would have been a tragedy
13 for the town. Look at annex 17. For the destruction of a firing position
14 under cover or completely without any cover, it is necessary to fire 200
15 shells from a 120-millimetre mortar. The Old Town would have been
16 destroyed. That is why I don't believe in such stories at all. Those
17 mortars that were allegedly shot at by mortars.
18 Q. But you agree that you do not fire at roofs; it's illogical as you
19 just said to fire at roofs in an area. Isn't that correct, sir?
20 A. In order to destroy a mortar that is on the ground, yes, it would
21 clearly be illogical to target a mortar that cannot be seen.
22 Q. So therefore, if all those roofs are damaged, and you saw numbers
23 of roofs were damaged in the Old Town, there had to be some reason other
24 than firing at one mortar. Isn't that correct?
25 A. Please, sir, above all, our expert opinion shows unequivocally
1 that while shooting at targets that are around the town, some shells are
2 bound to fall within the town.
3 Q. Sir, please answer the question.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can the witness please
5 be allowed to answer this question because he was stopped in midstream.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE PARKER: The problem, Mr. Petrovic, is that the answer is
8 not dealing with the question. Normally, I would have agreed with you.
9 But on this occasion, I think there was justification. So if you can get
10 an answer to the question, Mr. Weiner.
11 MR. WEINER:
12 Q. Sir, based on the large number of roofs that had been damaged, all
13 I'm saying is - just yes or no - there has to be some other reason than
14 firing at one mortar. Isn't that correct?
15 A. I don't know that. Our expert analysis does not consider that at
17 Q. Now, sir, your expert analysis strictly dealt with firing at
18 alleged targets outside of the Old Town. If shells were intentionally
19 fired at objects within the Old Town, you would have to modify your
20 conclusions, and you would have to modify your report. Isn't that
22 A. On the condition that I had reliable information about that to
23 that effect, which we didn't, nor did our expert analysis require that.
24 The expert analysis was written in order to ascertain whether during JNA
25 fire against targets around the Old Town such as defined by
1 Nojko Marinovic and others, those are the firing positions that I'm
2 referring to, in real conditions, whether it was possible under such
3 conditions for projectiles to fall inside the Old Town. And we have
4 clearly managed to show that even without the influence of meteorological
5 conditions, shells may indeed fall inside the Old Town on the assumption
6 that certain ranges were used while firing.
7 So please, there is no way I can testify about something that I
8 did not study and something that I have never been tasked to study.
9 Q. Sir, sir --
10 A. Had I reviewed the impacts inside the Old Town, perhaps that would
11 have been a very different story.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Vilicic, this has gone on long enough. If you
13 would listen to the question, if you are unable to answer it, say that.
14 If you can answer it shortly or even as short as yes or no, please do so.
15 But you spend a lot of time answering something that has nothing to do
16 with the question in the end probably to justify why it is you can't
17 answer the question. You don't need to justify that. For the moment,
18 just say, "I can't answer it," if that is the position and we will get
19 along much faster. Thank you.
20 MR. WEINER:
21 Q. Last few questions, sir: Since your report dealt with alleged
22 targets outside the Old Town, if mortar shells were intentionally fired by
23 the JNA into the Old Town at targets or what they perceived to be targets,
24 you would have to modify your conclusions and change your report. Isn't
25 that correct?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 A. In terms of the number of shells, had that been targeted
2 deliberately, the number of shells would increase. First, of course, we
3 would have to do all the calculations. But yes, the number of shells
4 would increase. That's correct.
5 Q. And that you would have to change your conclusion if objects
6 within the Old Town were targeted, that at certain times during the day on
7 December 6th it actually was a primary target. Isn't that correct?
8 A. I don't think I would change any of my conclusions. Please, if
9 you look at the portion where we have shown that the shell falls along its
10 normal trajectory when a target outside the Old Town is targeted, we had
11 the exact number of shells that were fired from a certain firing position
12 against a certain target, then we could ascertain, had that particular
13 target not been targeted, it would have been this much or that much, the
14 number that we have given. And if we have information on a specific other
15 target, then the number would increase by so much. But there is no reason
16 for me to change my conclusion of the expert opinion now because the
17 expert opinion only talks about targets outside the Old Town.
18 Q. Now, sir, there is nothing in the damage that you saw in the
19 Old Town that indicates that it could not have been the result of
20 deliberate shelling. Isn't that correct?
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my objection on the
24 same grounds as yesterday when discussing damage. I do not wish to repeat
25 myself. I do not wish to waste time, but I would like this witness not to
1 be asked questions about damage because he's not competent to answer any
2 such questions. Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, Mr. Weiner.
4 MR. WEINER:
5 Q. Sir, the question is nothing in the damage that you observed in
6 the Old Town indicates that it could not have been caused by deliberate
7 shelling. Isn't that correct?
8 A. All the damage was caused by a mortar projectile explosions.
9 Whether it was deliberate or not was something that I could not establish.
10 I had no data based on which I could establish that.
11 Q. Now, sir, in your report on page 99, you state "it cannot be
12 concluded that fire from JNA mortars or other artillery and naval pieces
13 was primarily directed towards Dubrovnik Old Town as its primary target."
14 And you cite Nojko Marinovic and Zeljko Soldo.
15 Since both of those individuals indicated the targeting was
16 deliberate against the Old Town, and there are two JNA witnesses who
17 indicated that there was mortar shelling that was fired upon the Old Town
18 at alleged targets, based on that information, can you not conclude that
19 fire was directed at the Old Town for some periods during the day of
20 December 6th, 1991, and for some period of time it was a primary target?
21 A. Sir, on page 89, on page 89 of the expert analysis in the
22 conclusion on the -- on mortar fire, we concluded that based on everything
23 that we showed, 27 120-millimetre shells and 106 82-millimetre shells
24 could have landed inside the Old Town. It was based on those figures that
25 we made the following conclusion: Grade I and II damage was considered,
1 and we concluded following this analysis that a large number of shells
2 would have fallen inside the Old Town. If you count the impacts inside
3 the Old Town and compare them to our analysis, namely, that that was the
4 result of shooting at targets outside the Old Town how could that
5 conclusion possibly be that this was deliberate? The only logical
6 conclusion was that certain weather conditions were in place, and there
7 were positions that were putting the Old Town at risk. And that's why so
8 many shells landed inside the Old Town. You can't call that deliberate.
9 If you analyse targets that were outside the Old Town, this is what it
10 clearly shows.
11 Q. Sir, I'm asking you to assume these things, just listen to my
12 question, please. Assume the testimony of two JNA witnesses, witnesses
13 from the JNA, that there was shelling, mortar shelling in the Old Town
14 because they thought that there was an objective, there was a mortar in
15 the Old Town, and there was deliberate shelling into that Old Town. And
16 also assume those two statements that you cited, those of Soldo and
17 Marinovic where they both indicate shelling in the Old Town was
18 deliberate. If you assume those two points, can you not agree that for a
19 period of time, fire was directed by the JNA towards the Old Town as its
20 primary target?
21 A. This is something that I don't know about. There is no evidence.
22 I have a statement by one of the two witnesses, Nojko Marinovic, the
23 statement you showed me yesterday --
24 Q. Sir, I'm not asking you what you have. I'm asking you to assume
25 those facts. Two witnesses have testified here of intention shelling into
1 the Old Town. A third witness for the Prosecution who also served in the
2 JNA has testified of intentional shelling into the Old Town. That's
3 Witness B. You assume the validity of those three statements, sir, as
4 well as the validity of the two statements that you relied upon, the
5 statements of Soldo and Marinovic. And if you assume those, do you agree,
6 based on assuming those, that fire was directed towards the Old Town as
7 its primary target? Can you not agree based on assuming those facts?
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, please be seated.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, sir, my understanding is
11 that it's up to the Honourable Trial Chamber to judge whether those
12 statements were truthful or not. It isn't my place to use their
13 statements to make conclusions. I'm an expert. I have been called upon
14 to study specific data. But not witness statements or witness
15 testimonies, and this is nothing that I should base my opinion on.
16 MR. WEINER:
17 Q. I'm asking you as an expert, sir, what's known as a hypothetical
18 question. If you assume the validity of those three statements, that the
19 Old Town was deliberately targeted, as well as those two statements that
20 you rely upon in your report, do you not agree that for a period of time
21 on the 6th of December, fire was directed towards the Old Town as its
22 primary target, if you assume the validity of those five statements?
23 A. I think this is not a question for me. I'm an expert. I have put
24 together an expert analysis. I'm not here to analyse witness statements
25 or testimonies. As for Zeljko Soldo and Nojko Marinovic and their
1 testimonies, all we took from them were the locations on the number of
2 weapons, but that's all we had used their statements for, nor do I believe
3 I'm entitled as an engineer to use anything else from their testimonies.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, I am going to interrupt in place of
5 Mr. Petrovic. I thought you were going on to put something else, but at
6 the moment all you're putting to the witness is "if you assume" certain
7 evidence, don't you accept the truth of their evidence? That's the effect
8 of what you're putting.
9 MR. WEINER: No, I'm asking if he assumes certain evidence, does
10 he not agree that the Old Town was targeted?
11 JUDGE PARKER: But that's what I've just put to you in other
13 MR. WEINER: But he has taken the view, Your Honour, that the
14 Old Town was not targeted and it was as a result of collateral damage in
15 his conclusions and varying the evidence.
16 JUDGE PARKER: I know that. That's very clear. What I'm pointing
17 out is the question as you've now framed it really is not one that can be
18 usefully dealt with by this witness. I thought you were directing your
19 question at another aspect of that. But as you keep repeating it and
20 reformulating it, it's becoming clear that that's really all you're
22 MR. WEINER: I'll modify it and finish.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
24 MR. WEINER:
25 Q. Sir, if you assume, sir, that if you include the testimony of
1 three witnesses that the Old Town was deliberately attacked on the 7th of
2 December [sic], must you not modify your conclusions? And it's your
3 conclusion that the Old Town was not deliberately attacked.
4 A. For the kind of expert opinion that we made, I don't think the
5 conclusion would be changed. We would need to include targets inside the
6 Old Town. We would need all the information, what sort of weapons we
7 used, how many projectiles were fired, and where they impacted. And then
8 we could say, "Such and such a number of projectiles would fall that were
9 targeting positions outside the Old Town" and it would have been normal to
10 expect when these weapons are fired, since so many shells were fired, that
11 out of a total number of shells that were fired a certain number fell
12 inside the Old Town.
13 But for you to expect me now to confirm something that I do not
14 indeed know, nor have I heard any testimonies that the Old Town had been
15 targeted deliberately, there are statements that I read, but specifically
16 in terms of the percentage given by Nojko Marinovic, I think it was caused
17 by frustration, and the same applies to Zeljko Soldo when he said that the
18 attack on Srdj failed first, and it was only after the attack had filed
19 that they had begun to target the Old Town. But this is of no relevance
20 for my analysis because this is not the kind of analysis that I was
21 involved in.
22 My analysis analyses targets outside the Old Town. It was based
23 on those targets that I reached my conclusion, namely that there was no
24 deliberate shooting because a lot of projectiles fell there. It's all
25 conditional. I should perhaps speak in terms a projectile would have
1 fallen somewhere if we had, for example, a hundred projectiles falling on
2 a certain firing position. In order for this expert opinion to be of any
3 use to the Trial Chamber when studying all the testimonies, and then you
4 said the witness then spoke about this fire position, so in that case they
5 will go back to the expert analysis and say, okay, but we had five times
6 the number of shells falling on that particular position, and that's what
7 we need to look at. So that was the reason why we make this expert
9 Q. But, sir, your expert analysis does not include or was not based
10 on the evidence of the two Defence witnesses who indicate that the
11 Old Town was deliberately targeted or Witness B from the JNA who indicated
12 that the Old Town was deliberately targeted. Isn't that correct? Yes or
14 A. Sir, you will remember that during my testimony before this
15 Honourable Trial Chamber I said that the expert analysis ends with
16 Ivan Negodic's testimony and that I --
17 Q. Sir, the question is - yes or no - did you include in your
18 analysis those three witnesses? Just yes or no, sir.
19 A. Only in relation to the weapons' location and the number of
20 weapons, nothing else.
21 Q. So you did not include the testimonies of those three witnesses?
22 A. No, I didn't include their entire testimonies. Only some of the
24 Q. Thank you very much.
25 MR. WEINER: No further questions.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
2 Mr. Petrovic.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Re-examined by Mr. Petrovic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vilicic, please, tell us specifically why you
6 used these witness testimonies that you refer to in your report, for what
7 sort of information?
8 A. For two kinds of information only. Firstly, the locations of the
9 firing positions of the Croatian forces and the JNA, Nojko Marinovic in
10 relation to the Croatian forces --
11 Q. Please, no details. Why did you use those statements?
12 MR. WEINER: Objection, Your Honour. The word was testimonies
13 first. It should be statements of individuals because they weren't
15 JUDGE PARKER: Entirely technically correct, Mr. Weiner, but I
16 think anybody will understand the transcript.
17 Mr. Petrovic, you're having the same difficulty as Mr. Weiner.
18 Press on.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Indeed. Thank
21 Q. Mr. Vilicic, why, in order to obtain what sort of information
22 exactly, did you use the witness statements that you referred to in your
24 A. The only information we used was the location of the weapons and
25 the number of weapons. That was all.
1 Q. Did you analyse anything else based on those statements in
2 addition to these groups of information that you just referred to?
3 A. No, nothing else. Because there was nothing else that we needed
4 in order to approach this problem from a technical point of view.
5 Q. Was there any other source of information that you used as to
6 where the potential positions of the targets were or the potential
7 locations of the firing positions?
8 A. The next source of information was the map that the OTP submitted
9 to us that was used, I believe, during Ivan Negodic's testimony. I think
10 it was shown where you can see the C-4 firing position at 200 metres to
11 the west of the Old Town in the direction of Ploce. 200 metres to the
12 east of the Old Town, correction.
13 This is something that is not included in Nojko Marinovic's
15 Q. Please, don't go any further into that. Just try to answer my
17 Was that the only source of information that you used, the
18 statements on the one hand and the maps on the other, that you used while
19 defining the positions and the targets?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You said yesterday that you had an opportunity to read the expert
22 opinion of Jozo Poje, didn't you?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. While reading that opinion, I suppose you saw what method he used
25 to determine the positions, which targets did he analyse?
1 A. He analysed hypothetical targets that were not there to begin
3 Q. Please, just tell me which ones. Which targets?
4 A. As far as I remember, he analysed Ploce, Bogosica Park, but in
5 relation to firing positions that were not there at all, for example a
6 120-millimetre mortar from Bosanka. It was only in annex 2 that he
7 analysed the target of Ploce as targeted from Uskoplje by the
8 120-millimetre mortar. Speaking from memory, but I would have to look at
9 it again in order to be more accurate.
10 Q. What about Jozo Poje? Did he do the same thing in his analysis
11 that you did in yours? He assumed some positions, he assumed the targets,
12 and he calculated the zone of dispersion, didn't he?
13 MR. WEINER: I object, Your Honour. We never in cross-examination
14 discussed Mr. Poje. It's outside the scope of cross-examination.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I please answer.
16 JUDGE PARKER: No. Carry on, Mr. Petrovic.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Can the witness please be shown P184, which is Jozo Poje's report.
19 Since I'm not sure if the witness can locate it at this point in time.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't have it here.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Together with the annexes, annex 1
22 and annex 2. So we need annex P184/1, /2, and /5, or at least that's what
23 I believe.
24 Your Honour, will you please instruct me now, shall we be going on
25 until 11.00 or --
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 JUDGE PARKER: Would it be more convenient to have the break for
2 you then to proceed?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That is precisely what I was about
4 to propose, Your Honour. I would like the witness to have some time to go
5 through the document, and then we can proceed after the break.
6 JUDGE PARKER: You will realise that I am allowing you to enter
7 into this simply to indicate in general terms whether the approach of the
8 other expert was the same approach as this expert.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that was precisely my
10 intention. Thank you.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Beyond that, Mr. Weiner's objection would become
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I fully understand and agree with
14 that, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now and resume at quarter past.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.53 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 11.21 a.m.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Mr. Vilicic, could you first please look at the document P184/2.
21 That is an addendum to the expert analysis prepared by Jozo Poje, and
22 please look at B/C/S page 0356729.
23 Have you found this page?
24 A. [No audible response]
25 Q. So at the upper right-hand corner, you should see these numbers,
1 the last three digits are 729.
2 A. I can't find that page.
3 Q. Ms. Usher has the document in her hands.
4 A. I can't find the number 729. I can only see 279.
5 Q. So 03563729.
6 A. I can only find 932. That's annex 2 the Jozo Poje expert report.
7 Q. If I may give you my copy so you can better find your way around.
8 Could you please put it on the ELMO so that everyone can see the document.
9 Let us just look at the upper part of the page and the beginning
10 of the page, in fact. Just a little bit downwards. Thank you.
11 Mr. Vilicic, could you please just read and focus on my question.
12 Mr. Vilicic, the first sentence, can you please read it for us, the first
13 sentence on this page.
14 A. "Based on the recent information about the position of the
15 Croatian army weapon positions around the Old Town of Dubrovnik, the
16 dispersion patterns have been calculated."
17 Q. Mr. Vilicic, in this report that you have in front of you, is
18 there any other source indicated other than this sentence that you have
19 just read which is at the top of this page?
20 A. I don't see any other source.
21 Q. Further downwards in the same document, it reads: "Zarkovica
22 firing position," then it says PA gun, that is anti-aircraft gun, north of
23 the town. Is that correct?
24 A. So, "firing position Zarkovica, PA gun, the beginning of the cable
25 car, north of the Old Town."
1 Q. Thank you, can you now turn to the second page of this document
2 and please read what it says about mortar firing position and the target.
3 A. "Anti-aircraft gun east of Ploce at 200 metres."
4 Q. And there's ERN number --
5 A. Yes, ERN number 03340722F2.
6 Q. Now, can you look at point 184.5 referring to Uskoplje, please.
7 Could you please read the first sentence only at the top of the page.
8 A. "On the map, the deployment of the 2nd Operational Group's forces
9 on 2nd December 1991, see position of the battalion firing group of the
10 3rd Motorised Brigade in the Uskoplje sector if it was fired from the
11 position at the anti-aircraft gun north of the town."
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, we did not get the whole
13 sentence. It was removed from the ELMO.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. We don't need this
15 document any longer.
16 Q. Mr. Vilicic, you have seen how Jozo Poje has indicated potential
17 firing positions and potential targets.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Only in terms of the manner of marking potential targets and
20 potential firing positions, in those terms, did you take an identical
22 A. Yes, I did. That was my conditional target C-5.
23 Q. Thank you. Mr. Vilicic, could you also please tell me, based on
24 what kind of analysis did you arrive at the conclusion that the Old Town
25 had not been the target on the 6th of December? What kind of analysis?
1 A. Based on a ballistic analysis done on the basis of calculations,
2 and we concluded that based on the figures and patterns of dispersion
3 under normal conditions we concluded that a number of projectiles fell
4 into the Old Town.
5 Q. Did you at any time attempt in your analysis to portray the
6 sequence and dynamics of events of the 6th of December?
7 A. No, I didn't. This is a kind of static analysis.
8 Q. Did you at any time entertain an ambition to explain how it all
9 started and what everybody's intentions were?
10 A. No, that was not the subject of my analysis.
11 Q. Mr. Vilicic, why did you at all in one segment of your analysis
12 raise the issue of damage? What was your motivation for that?
13 A. We analysed the damage only from the viewpoint of whether the
14 roughly estimated degree of first- and second-rate damage corresponded to
15 the number of shells falling in the Old Town while targeting the
16 objectives outside the Old Town. So we detected a great similarity in the
17 number of shells and the number that we have arrived in our calculations
18 with respect to the damage incurred on buildings of grades I and II
19 because those were the only ones that could have been deemed as directly
21 Q. Let us move now to another subject. In principle and
22 theoretically speaking, what is the ultimate range of a mortar?
23 A. That's the range achieved when firing at 45-degree angle on
24 condition that other requirements for the table are fulfilled, which means
25 that that was a standard plus-15 degree temperature, that the pressure was
1 760 millibars, that there was no wind, and provided that the target and
2 the weapon were in the same plane. In other words, ideal conditions taken
3 from the tables. Only under such conditions can this be achieved.
4 Q. What does the term ultimate range mean?
5 A. That means the maximum distance that a projectile can reach. It
6 cannot reach beyond that distance.
7 Q. What is the difference -- Mr. Vilicic, what is the difference
8 between the ultimate range and the effective range of a weapon, successful
9 range of a weapon? What is the difference between these two notions?
10 A. There is a difference because only individual shells reach an
11 ultimate target. I said none of them can go beyond that. An effective
12 range for mortars is two-thirds of the maximum range. That is what we
13 call an effective range. Beyond that, the dispersion increases. And the
14 accuracy also decreases.
15 Q. Therefore, the ultimate range is a theoretical notion?
16 A. Yes, that is a maximum range in theory and under ideal conditions.
17 Q. If I understood properly the answer to your previous question, an
18 effective range of a mortar is two-thirds of the ultimate range?
19 A. Yes, that is correct.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
21 Document P132. Thank you.
22 Q. Mr. Vilicic, can you see on this map, or maybe it's -- the details
23 are too small. Can you see the position of the Libertas Hotel?
24 A. Yes, I see. This is this darkened area. That's the hotel.
25 Q. Can you discern topographic characteristics of the terrain of the
1 Hotel Libertas?
2 A. Yes, it's at the elevation and after our yesterday's discussion.
3 Q. Mr. Vilicic, can you see the topographic characteristics of the
5 A. Yes, I can. This map shows that.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 A. I think that the altitude is 30 metres. That is what I wrote.
8 Q. Mr. Vilicic, with respect to north, can you tell me at which slope
9 is Libertas Hotel towards any point north of the Hotel Libertas?
10 A. At the rear slope. Because you see that the contours increase as
11 the altitude increases.
12 Q. Tell me now, concerning -- can you see the battalion firing
13 group -3 on this map? Can you please point it with a pointer.
14 A. This is this B-3 firing group.
15 Q. Can you see on this map an observation point of the commander of
16 the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Brigade? Is it marked on this map?
17 A. This is the 3rd Company, the 2nd Company. I think this would be
18 the observation post. Yes, here it is. The observation point was close
19 to Mocije or Mocije cave. So this would be the command post. And I
20 suppose an observation post is there, too.
21 MR. WEINER: I'd object, Your Honour. He's saying "I suppose."
22 He's just assuming. He's speculating.
23 JUDGE PARKER: That's valid. The marking is of the command post,
24 I think, Mr. Petrovic.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] All right. Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. So where was the command post of the commander?
2 A. The one that I had just shown. It's named Mocinska Spilja, or
3 Mocije cave, rather, that is the closest location to it.
4 Q. Mr. Vilicic, is it possible from the location of Mocije cave to
5 guide or correct fire of the firing group of the 3rd Battalion of the
6 5th Brigade at the rear slope near the Libertas Hotel that you had
7 previously indicated?
8 A. No, it is not possible. As you can see, behind the Libertas Hotel
9 towards the observation post, the contours become more dense which means
10 that the elevation there -- the altitude there was higher than that of the
11 Libertas Hotel, and this hill here creates a cover. No, you can't see it
12 because the Libertas Hotel altitude is not more than 20 metres, I believe,
13 and that is an altitude that cannot be seen from this higher altitude as I
14 can read from the contours. That would be over 100, even maybe 190
16 Q. Thank you. Next question: Could you please take the map that you
17 had with you yesterday and that you used for calculations, and can you
18 please also take a ruler.
19 First, we need both maps. Please keep them there. Mr. Vilicic,
20 first of all, on the map that Mrs. Usher is holding in her hands -- could
21 you please take your ruler...
22 First of all, on the map that is on the ELMO, use your ruler to
23 measure the distance of the mark of the battalion group 3. Can you
24 measure it in millimetres, how big it is.
25 A. You mean the diameter?
1 Q. Yes, the diameter of the position of the firing group 3.
2 A. 4 millimetres. Just give me some more time. 3 and a half
3 millimetres. I apologise. 4 millimetres.
4 Q. Tell me now, assuming that the scale of this map is 1 to 71.000,
5 and that's something that we have no reason to doubt, tell me how much is
6 4 millimetres on a map with 1 to 71.000 scale?
7 A. Yesterday I said that 12 millimetres is 1.000 metres; therefore, 4
8 millimetres would be 333 metres.
9 Q. Mr. Vilicic.
10 A. Yes, I'm listening.
11 Q. On your map, can you please precisely indicate the position of the
12 battalion firing group, the centre of this mark, please.
13 A. Just a moment, please. I can't see it on my map as on this one.
14 Let me see. This centre is point 6. 5 millimetres. Just one moment. I
15 need to calculate it. I apologise.
16 500 metres. Yes. It's 500 metres to the right of the point 6.
17 Q. Mr. Vilicic, can you find on your map the location where the
18 battalion firing group was indicated -- as indicated in P132.
19 A. Well, there's a huge difference in the scale. But recalculating
20 it, I may determine the location. So as I said, 500 metres would be here.
21 Now, let me see what is the distance there. The average is 402. 150
22 metres. Just a moment, please. Well, approximately here.
23 Q. Can you please mark this.
24 A. On my map?
25 Q. Yes, on your map.
1 A. That would be approximately -- 500 is here. That's here. So this
2 is it.
3 Q. Yesterday, when you answered my learned colleague's question,
4 determined that the distance between this point and Libertas, did you mark
5 it precisely as you did now?
6 A. No, I didn't. I didn't have exact coordinates of the map. I now
7 realise that I made a mistake.
8 Q. Mr. Vilicic, from the point that you have marked on your map, can
9 you please put the map on the ELMO so that everyone can see it.
10 So from that point, could you please calculate the distance to the
11 Libertas Hotel.
12 A. 6.000, 1200. So I'll take the centre point of Libertas.
13 Q. Yes, it's all right. Take the centre.
14 A. It's 6.250 plus... So that would be -- six and one-third. That
15 would be 6.360 [as interpreted] metres.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vilicic. Can a 120-millimetre mortar hit an
17 invisible target at the rear slope from the distance of 6.330 metres?
18 A. No, no, it's impossible. That would be an ultimate range, and it
19 would be out of control.
20 Q. Could any effects be achieved on the target by firing at the
21 distance of 6.330 metres in the ultimate range and at a rear slope? Yes
22 or no.
23 A. Well, it's very difficult. It would be random shooting.
24 Q. Mr. Vilicic, let's move to the next question. Just briefly, the
25 Jugo wind, you said that while -- when Jugo blows, that is characterised
1 by low air pressure.
2 A. Yes, the sky's overcast, the pressure is low. And that indicates
3 the forthcoming rain. That's what ordinary folk would say, the drop of
4 pressure which makes people feel bad, et cetera.
5 Q. As for Bura, you said that it goes with high air pressure.
6 A. Yes. It is generally clear, visibility at sea is great as opposed
7 to the visibility which is reduced when Jugo blows. So you see crystal
8 clear, everything.
9 Q. On the tapes that you viewed, did you notice what was the weather
10 like on the 6th of December? Was it cloudy?
11 A. I could see that it was clear.
12 Q. Just two or three more subjects, if we can cover very briefly.
13 Yesterday, when you spoke about recoilless gun, you said that an armoured
14 target can be hit at the distance of up to 1300 metres. Could this gun be
15 used to shoot targets beyond that distance?
16 A. Yesterday I made a slip of the tongue because I know that a new
17 sight can indicate up to 2.000 metres because as I said the
18 dispersion -- vertical dispersion pattern is two times two.
19 Q. So what you are saying is that targets beyond 1300 metres can be
20 shot at?
21 A. Yes, but with very low degree of precision.
22 Q. Now, we would like to move on to the damage in front of St. Blaise
23 church. If you can find it, P71, that is the film made by Djelo Jusic,
24 19th minute, 17 seconds.
25 A. You mean the shortened version or his entire recording so that we
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 reach this time? Shall I play the entire original, 27.32 and stop at this
2 timing, 19.17?
3 Q. Please, I would kindly ask you to find the 19th minute and the
4 17th second.
5 A. You said 19 minutes, 17 seconds?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. I'll play it from 19.14. It's the Stradun.
8 Q. Please wait for my question.
9 [Videoclip played]
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Stop now.
11 Q. Tell us, please, once again, in which direction relative to the
12 Stradun do the slabs stretch, the slabs that cover the area around
13 St. Blaise's church?
14 A. Relative to the canal you see on the Stradun, these slabs are
15 rectangular. The sinkhole in the middle. So the slabs are rectangular at
16 a right angle to the centre of the Stradun.
17 Q. You mean at a degree of 90 degrees? At 90 degrees?
18 A. Yes, yes. And you can see that on the film if you allow me to
19 play it.
20 Q. Mr. Vilicic, now --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. -- please play the film P145, the 58th second. That is the JNA
24 A. Excuse me, what did you say?
25 Q. 58th second.
1 A. This is second 55, and then it goes on, damage to the column, to
2 the pillar.
3 [Videoclip played]
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Freeze here. Please look. In which direction do the slabs
6 stretch, the slabs covering the square in front of the church?
7 A. You see they go from the church to the north of the church. Let's
8 put it that way because the church is on the south side, and this is
9 north-south. And now I'm showing west-east, and the material is thrown to
10 the west. The slabs are thrown to the east. Yesterday I said that the
11 projectile fell at an angle from the western direction, penetrated here,
12 exploded. The debris was created and made this spherical trace. You see
13 this depression here. The impact wave that was moving outside threw out
14 these slabs, and this material coming from the hole was thrown backwards
15 to the side where the angle of the projectile was smaller relative to the
16 ground. That was the basic conclusion.
17 Q. Let us clarify one more thing: These slabs covering the square in
18 front of St. Blaise church are at a 90-degree angle relative to the
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. We don't need this film any more.
22 MR. WEINER: Your Honour.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
24 MR. WEINER: May the record reflect that the little arrow he
25 pointed north and south and west and east was all the same, with the
1 little arrow on the computer when he had the picture.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
3 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous interpretation continues] ... I don't
4 know what to make of that, Mr. Weiner.
5 MR. WEINER: The little arrow that you use with the mouse when he
6 was pointing north and south, and then he pointed east and west, and it
7 was all the same, in front and behind of the crater.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, allow the witness to
9 repeat it if this is unclear. I don't think this is unclear. But let us
10 show it again. Let us show the directions again if my learned friend
11 believes there is any confusion.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Vilicic, please, show us the film P145.
15 A. Second 55.
16 Q. Yes, second 55. Freeze here. Now, slowly and carefully.
17 A. All right, I'll rewind it a bit. This is 46, second 50. Here,
18 here we can see how the slabs go. They are parallel -- they are at a
19 90-degree angle to Stradun.
20 Q. Now, slowly and carefully show us where the west is.
21 A. Here, I'm showing the arrow points west.
22 Q. Let the record show that the arrow on minute 58 -- or rather,
23 second 58 on P145, the arrow points towards the top of the screen.
24 Please show us east.
25 A. Here is east. East is in this direction.
1 Q. Please, for the record, let us note that the witness is pointing
2 with the arrow towards the lower edge of the screen.
3 Mr. Vilicic, please show us in which direction is the north.
4 A. Here is north.
5 Q. Thank you. Let the record show that the witness is pointing
6 towards the right edge of the screen.
7 Where is south?
8 A. Here in this direction.
9 Q. Let the record show that the witness is pointing towards the left
10 side of the screen as south.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Vilicic, we will not be needing this any more.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Sorry, Mr. Petrovic. It would help me if we could
14 see that, now is as convenient as any time, from about 10 seconds before
15 to about 10 after just to get that particular picture in perspective.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Vilicic, now, kindly play this from second 48.
18 A. In the bottom right corner, you see the time. At this moment is
19 07, 08. Those are seconds. I will move the picture. Look at the left
20 number, which is now changing as I'm moving. Here is second 43.
21 Q. Freeze for a moment. Now.
22 A. Here you can see how --
23 Q. Mr. Vilicic, I'm just asking you kindly, in fact, the
24 Trial Chamber is asking you to play the tape --
25 A. Second 46 --
1 Q. We don't need comments. Just play it from second 46.
2 [Videoclip played]
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Your Honour, do you wish us to play the other film, P78, also, a
5 segment a little before and a little after the piece we were concentrating
7 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic. Yes.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Vilicic, please let us go back to film P78. That is the
10 recording made by Djelo Jusic.
11 A. Which part do you want?
12 Q. 19 minutes, 10 seconds.
13 A. Here. 19.08.
14 [Videoclip played]
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here is Stradun. You can see
16 clearly how the slabs are perpendicular to the Stradun. Shall I freeze?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Play it unless I say otherwise.
18 Your Honours, that was about 20 seconds of this.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here, please look at the slabs.
20 Look at this channel in the middle.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, is it --
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Vilicic. Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Q. Mr. Vilicic, we don't need the recording any more.
25 A. Do you want the computer? Can I switch it off?
1 Q. Mr. Vilicic, just a few more brief questions. First of all, were
2 you at Zarkovica on the 6th of December 1991?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Have you ever been at Zarkovica?
5 A. No, I haven't. I have been to Dubrovnik, but not to Zarkovica.
6 Q. Do you have any idea at all what can be seen and what can't be
7 seen from the Zarkovica locality?
8 A. I can only assume, but I cannot tell exactly what can be seen,
9 what is visible. I had that photograph.
10 Q. Thank you. Tell us kindly, in relation to what you wanted to
11 explain yesterday, but please, as briefly as possible and as concisely
12 concerning the photograph mentioned in the Galic case, just a few
13 sentences to explain the Honourable Chamber what it was all about.
14 A. I would be grateful to the Trial Chamber, since I took off the
15 Internet precisely the part of the transcript where I spoke about this
16 case. There is a drawing where I clearly indicated the trajectory, the
17 direction of descent of the projectile as indicated in the Prosecution
18 material. There was a picture where I mistakenly turned by 180 degrees.
19 It was never used for determining the direction, and I clearly said in my
20 testimony on pages 2364, 63, 65, I clearly said when Honourable Judge Orie
21 asked me that we did not rely on the picture for making our conclusions.
22 We were strictly guided by the material provided and the direction was not
23 changed anywhere. And I was astounded when I read in the Galic judgement
24 in a footnote that Vilicic practically changed the direction of the
25 projectile and indicated south-southeast instead of north.
1 And I will kindly ask the Trial Chamber to allow me to produce
2 this part of the transcript because I emphatically said the direction does
3 not change, and I never mentioned south or southeast.
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vilicic. Just tell us again on what pages of the
5 transcript can we find this?
6 A. Transcript of the 27th February 2003 starting with page 20.363,
7 20.363, starting with line 17, up to the end, line 25, continuing on page
8 20.364, full page, and page 20.365, lines 1 to 15.
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vilicic. I have no further questions.
10 A. I would appreciate it if I could give the Trial Chamber this part
11 of my testimony in transcript where one can clearly see what I exactly
12 said about that wretched picture that was turned and the conclusion that
13 was never changed relative to what was indicated in the Prosecution
14 material, that the projectile came from the north, and our conclusion was
15 that it was impossible to determine precisely from which precise location
16 in the north it came from.
17 Q. The Trial Chamber has access to this transcript. And if it deems
18 necessary, they will review it. Thank you for your testimony.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
20 tender now the exhibits treated through this witness.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
22 Questioned by the Court:
23 JUDGE PARKER: Before we finish with the evidence, though,
24 Mr. Vilicic, I noted in the course of your evidence this morning that it
25 was the conclusion that you reached in the course of your analysis that
1 some 27 120-millimetre shells, mortar shells, and 106 82-millimetre mortar
2 shells could have landed inside the Old Town when mortars were targeting
3 targets outside the Old Town. Is that the basis -- have I correctly
4 understood what you were saying.
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE PARKER: So altogether, you calculated or estimated 133
7 mortar shells might have landed?
8 A. Yes. Yes.
9 JUDGE PARKER: In your report in the English-language version at
10 page 89, or maybe page 4388 -- I think it's 89. There are two page
11 references. 89, you have a -- it's in paragraph 6.4 --
12 A. [In English] 89.
13 JUDGE PARKER: -- conclusion, and your conclusion number 11 which
14 indicates that "if targeting had been carried out according to the
15 prescribed norms, up to 81 120-millimetre shells and 206 82-millimetre
16 shells with simple preparation of initial firing data, that is, a total of
17 up to 287 shells, would have landed in the Old Town. And most of the
18 features in the Old Town would have been completely destroyed."
19 Firstly, on what basis do you form the view that if some 287
20 shells had landed in the Old Town, most of its features would have been
21 completely destroyed? I'd like to understand that a little more.
22 A. We based that conclusion on the efficiency of 120-millimetre
23 mortar shells and the effectiveness of 82-millimetre shells. Such a great
24 number of 120-millimetre shells which have a greater destructive capacity
25 than artillery, 120-millimetre shells, would have led to the destruction
1 of a large number of facilities. Roofings, the whole buildings, frames,
2 construction, all that would have been destroyed, demolished, and it would
3 have been tragic for the town.
4 Your Honour, this number of the regulation, of the standards, that
5 indicates that if the town had been targeted according to the standard
6 which is given in annex 17 indicating how many shells are needed to
7 destroy a certain firing position, then we arrive at this number of
8 shells. So our analysis was done for one combat kit in the report. In
9 this alternative, we would have two to three combat kits per mortar which
10 means that the mortars that were at Ledenice would have fired around 480
11 shells of 120 millimetres. If they had fired that, then at least 80 or
12 more precisely 81 would have landed in the Old Town as a result of the
13 dispersion we described in the report.
14 And, Your Honours, that was our basis for concluding that the
15 shooting was not carried out according to the standards for the
16 destruction of these targets, that a significantly lower number of
17 projectiles was fired, because if such a great number of projectiles had
18 landed -- I'm sorry, you probably did not receive the revised version of
19 this page. It is actually item 9, and in your copy it's item 11, point 2
20 is duplicated. And we see in two places points 2 and 3. Item 9, if
21 targeting had been carried out according to the prescribed norms, up to 81
22 120-millimetre shells, et cetera ...
23 JUDGE PARKER: In your process of analysis, I understand from what
24 you're saying that you've taken into account what is prescribed in the JNA
25 as to the amount of -- the number of shells that ought to be used to
1 effectively destroy a particular target. Is that it?
2 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Now, what further interests me is the difference
4 between your view that some 287 shells, of which some 81 were 120
5 millimetre, that they would have completely destroyed most of the features
6 in the Old Town, and your view that the damage that we have seen and which
7 you identified and used for the purposes of your report, the first two
8 types of damage, that that could have been accomplished by 133 shells, of
9 which 27 were 120 millimetre.
10 The total number of mortar shells for total destruction is only
11 just a little over double the number that you've used in the other
12 proposition. Could you assist me there with that difference.
13 A. What is double is the number that I indicated, 27. We concluded
14 27 shells of 120 millimetres would fall within the Old Town if one combat
15 kit had been fired. In the other proposition, we assumed three combat
16 kits that would have to have been fired to achieve this number. That is
17 what the calculation shows. According to the standard, mortars would have
18 had to fire 2.7 combat kits of 120 millimetres in order to destroy one
19 source of fire, one firing position.
20 So this number is three times higher than the conclusion that we
21 arrived at, assuming one combat kit. We said that one combat kit is 27
22 shells of 120 millimetres, and if the standard had been followed there
23 would have been 81 shells. That is the calculation that led us to this
24 correlation, 27 as opposed to 81. We were following the number of shells
25 that would have had to be fired according to the standard indicated in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 annex 17.
2 JUDGE PARKER: My question was attempting to focus on the
3 difference between the damage that was actually caused according to the
4 report which you acted on for the 133 shells and your view that the
5 Old Town, or most of its features, would have been completely destroyed by
6 just some 287 shells. Is that a reliable view?
7 A. Well, honestly, this is just an estimate. But the number before,
8 27 and 106 is consistent with the first and second grade damaged
9 buildings. I'm referring to the damage that was caused because we have
10 between 8 and 12 of the first and second grade, and around 72 of the
11 second grade, second category of damage. If we start out with the
12 assumption that it would have to have been direct impacts to cause that
13 sort of damage. And the third and fourth grade damage is usually damage
14 to the walls, doors, or windows. Those are not direct impacts, but rather
15 indirect ones, which means that a shell fell somewhere near the building,
16 closer to it or further away from it.
17 It was based on that correlation that we reached our conclusion,
18 and the number of impacts that landed as a result of the targeting of
19 positions outside the Old Town is more or less the same as the number of
20 features that were destroyed, or rather reported as having been destroyed
21 inside the Old Town, not the exact number, but, as I said, this was the
22 second time we used this information on the number of damaged buildings
23 inside the Old Town. So we have about 90 features or buildings which is
24 consistent with between 90 and a hundred-and-something shells that was
25 fired, 108, specifically I believe.
1 In the first analysis, the number was 106 82-millimetre shells, a
2 total of 106, and 27 120-millimetre shells as well as 82, 79, a total of
3 106 shells. So that was the conclusion, conclusion number 10 in your
5 JUDGE PARKER: Very roughly speaking, you're concluding that one
6 combat pack could have caused the damage that has been identified in the
7 report, and that roughly three combat packs would be necessary to
8 completely destroy most of the features in the Old Town. Is that it?
9 A. Yes, yes. There would be a lot more damage to the Old Town. In
10 terms of some kind of symmetry, certainly twice or three times as great in
11 terms of how many buildings would be damaged, and I'm referring to the
12 first and second degree of damage or category of damage.
13 Your Honour, if I may allow, that is precisely why our conclusion
14 was, the conclusion based in our report, that the targeting was not
15 deliberate because there is consistency between the fired projectiles
16 against external targets, targets outside the Old Town. There was
17 consistency with the number of damaged buildings of the first and second
18 category inside the Old Town, and that was the only basis that we had for
19 that conclusion. Nothing else.
20 JUDGE PARKER: I take it you proceeded on the assumption that the
21 damage is all caused by mortar shells. Is that right?
22 A. Yes, most of the damage was caused by mortar shells. When I
23 reviewed the footage, I saw two 120-millimetre projectiles that failed to
24 actually explode. I listened to witness testimonies as I was following
25 this trial, and most of the Prosecution witnesses mentioned that they had
1 found the stabilisers and that they kept them as keepsakes. The exact
2 number of shells, the only way to ascertain the exact number of shells and
3 I'm rather surprised that this was not done by the Croatian side is if you
4 collect all these stabilisers, because the stabilisers are left behind,
5 120-millimetre shell stabilisers that should have been shown to this
6 Honourable Trial Chamber in order to say which exact number of shells
7 landed inside the Old Town. It really very much surprises me that the
8 police seem to have been unable for the purpose of this case to collect
9 the number of those shells and to present the Honourable Trial Chamber
10 with the exact number, or rather the stabilisers. That would have
11 constituted some very specific proof that indeed such-and-such number of
12 shells did land inside the Old Town. But nothing short of that.
13 JUDGE PARKER: You've proceeded on the basis of reading the
14 testimony of witnesses and looking at the video evidence to reach your
15 assumption that most of the damage was due to mortars. Is that it?
16 A. Yes, yes. And also, in our report we mentioned that we did not
17 mention any damage caused by the small-calibre navy weapons, 20
18 millimetre, 40 millimetre, and 57-millimetre weapons. Bearing in mind the
19 angle of the trajectory, the only thing that could have been damaged
20 inside the Old Town were the roofs because those were flat trajectories
21 and not curved ones as in mortars. Therefore, there would have been no
22 chance for those projectiles to land inside the Old Town to begin with.
23 So the most damage that could have been caused, we saw the
24 external damage, and we wrote that from the sea, there was no footage that
25 was taken from the sea for us to see whether the external walls of the
1 Old Town sustained any damage. The only damage to the outer part of the
2 walls, as I said, was caused by the engine of a Maljutka rocket. It
3 remained lodged inside the wall of the Old Town once the damage had been
4 caused. But that was the only thing we could notice in that particular
6 JUDGE PARKER: Do I correctly understand it to be your view that
7 smaller naval weapons could have mostly hit roofs in the Old Town?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 JUDGE PARKER: And going back to what you were trying to say to
10 Mr. Weiner, some of the language in your report could suggest otherwise,
11 but is it really that we should understand that you are proceeding on the
12 basis that all JNA firing was targeted at suspected or known Croatian
13 weapon sites outside the Old Town?
14 A. Yes, yes. I also mentioned that the C-6 position at 500 metres
15 from the Old Town was the only one we chose ourselves, whereas the other
16 position that was at a hundred metres from the Old Town is consistent with
17 the anti-aircraft gun. I saw that in Jozo Poje's document. And you
18 remember, Your Honours, I was here for his testimony, and there was that
19 discussion about the angle or the rear and the frontal gradient in
20 relation to that particular gun, that was when we introduced in our
21 analysis also the position of this particular gun.
22 It was based on Ivan Negodic's testimony that we introduced C-4,
23 which was another position about 200 metres to the east of the Old Town.
24 And we took from General Nojko Marinovic the Bogosica Park position
25 because he stated categorically twice that two 82-millimetre mortars and
1 one 120-millimetre mortar was placed there which I was quite surprised to
2 hear, if I may say, because Negodic categorically denied that. And
3 Zoran Primic, in his report, said he was the commander of that unit until
4 as late as June 1992. It would have been highly unlikely on such a day,
5 at such a decisive moment for the Defence of Dubrovnik town that at least
6 two key mortar positions, I'm talking about the one 200 metres away from
7 the gate of Ploce and the one in Bogosica Park were silent, or not
8 operating if you like, while an attack was being carried out from
9 Bosanka. Firing position were there that could target Bosanka and that
10 could prevent their fire and prevent the attack that was coming on from
11 the flank, from the direction of Zarkovica and Bosanka, and against Srdj.
12 However, as I've already said, we drafted this expert analysis for
13 you to use as a document which could help you to compare the real
14 situation with witness statements. And if then the conclusion that this
15 or that was what really happened, then what follows from that or based on
16 that is precisely what we stated in our expert opinion.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
18 Thank you. That has helped us, Mr. Vilicic. I'm happy to tell
19 you that your evidence is now at an end, and you are now able to return to
20 your other work. So may we thank you for your assistance here in this
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Your Honours, for
23 giving me a chance to testify before this Trial Chamber.
24 JUDGE PARKER: The witness may now leave.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, Mr. Petrovic.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, I would
4 like to have documents related to Mr. Vilicic's testimony admitted into
5 evidence. We believe that the conditions have been met for their
7 JUDGE PARKER: There was an objection when it was tendered at the
8 evidence in chief, Mr. Weiner. Is that maintained now?
9 MR. WEINER: Yes. I just wanted to say any sections, conclusions
10 or inferences that are not based on the evidence should either be
11 excluded, or at least given less weight.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Well, you can rely on the last part. And I raise
13 that very point at the beginning. But I think in fairness to the witness
14 to understand his evidence, we really need the whole of the report because
15 it discloses on what basis various conclusions were reached. And as he
16 has just finished saying, if those conclusions aren't ones which are
17 supported by the evidence, well obviously the conclusion has no
19 I think, Mr. Petrovic, we've managed to dispose of Mr. Weiner's
20 objection, and we would receive the full report. That will be received as
21 a Defence exhibit.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 THE REGISTRAR: The document will be D115.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, there were also placed before us
25 two sheets of paper to do with the trajectories and targeting. Are you
1 wanting those as well?
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. May those two
3 also be admitted as Defence exhibits, please.
4 JUDGE PARKER: They will be received.
5 THE REGISTRAR: D116.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Now, the curriculum vitae of the witness.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we would like to
8 tender that, too.
9 JUDGE PARKER: That will be received.
10 THE REGISTRAR: D117.
11 JUDGE PARKER: That seems to be the extent of the documentary
12 exhibits concerning the evidence of the last witness.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I hope so. And I hope
14 that when you decided to receive the expert report, your decision also
15 included the annexes to the expert report, annex 1 and 2.
16 JUDGE PARKER: I said the full report, intending by that to
17 include the annexes.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you.
19 I apologise if I misunderstood.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has no
22 further witnesses that it wishes to bring before this Trial Chamber. In
23 relation to the last witness that was envisaged, according to the plan and
24 to the 62 ter list that we provided, the Defence has already notified the
25 parties in writing, and we would like to do it orally now, too. We have
1 withdrawn the expert report and no longer wish this expert to testify
2 before this Chamber. Therefore, this brings the Defence case to an end.
3 We have two exceptions, however: Two expert reports, medical expert
4 reports by an orthopedic expert and something else that was submitted
5 pursuant to Rule 94 bis, a urologist's report, the OTP did not request
6 that those two witnesses be called in for cross-examination. So pursuant
7 to Rule 95 bis, I would propose that the Trial Chamber make a ruling in
8 order to receive these two reports as Defence exhibits, specifically I'm
9 referring to Dr. Micic's report and to Dr. Vuckovic's report. Both were
10 submitted on the 22nd of June this year.
11 JUDGE PARKER: The orthopedic report, is that Dr. Micic?
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Dr. Vuckovic's report
13 is the orthopedic one.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, they're both tendered with
15 relevance to mitigation, are they?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour. With
17 relevance to that only, as has been confirmed by the Defence team in
18 writing to our learned friends from the OTP and to the Trial Chamber.
19 JUDGE PARKER: They will be received.
20 THE REGISTRAR: The first report --
21 JUDGE PARKER: Dr. Vuckovic.
22 THE REGISTRAR: -- will be D118. And the second report --
23 JUDGE PARKER: Dr. Micic.
24 THE REGISTRAR: -- will be D119.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was today that the
1 Defence has filed a motion, [In English] "Proposed Defence Exhibits into
2 evidence," which is a motion in which a certain number of documents that
3 were part of the 65 ter Defence list are being proposed for admission into
4 evidence as Defence exhibits. I'm not sure if the motion has reached you,
5 Your Honour. But in that motion, we have provided an elaborate
6 explanation as to the substance of each and every one of those
7 documents - thank you - as well as the reasons why, pursuant to Rule 89,
8 these exhibits should be received into evidence as Defence exhibits.
9 It is our position that these exhibits meet all the necessary
10 requirements for being admitted as Defence exhibits. The motion was filed
11 just this morning, and I expect that my learned friends and colleagues
12 will soon be in a position to take a position in relation to that motion,
13 following which the Trial Chamber will be able to make a ruling on our
14 motion. We also sincerely hope that the proposed exhibits will be
15 received as Defence exhibits as a result of that ruling.
16 Your Honours, thank you very much.
17 JUDGE PARKER: The motion has been received, but only this
18 morning. I really can say that no member of the Chamber has had a chance
19 to look at it yet. But we will see what is the position of the
20 Prosecution on it.
21 Ms. Somers.
22 MS. SOMERS: Good morning, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE PARKER: I look across the sea of faces wondering who it is
24 going to speak these days.
25 MS. SOMERS: It is I for now. Thank you very much.
1 We have indeed received only this morning both news of the
2 withdrawal of the expert and the pile of exhibits that Mr. Petrovic has
3 just made reference to. We will speedily look at those and have a
4 response so that there's no untoward delay for the Chamber.
5 The -- there was another issue I think that the Chamber had
6 raised, and if we're finished with this particular point, I would ask for
7 leave to address it whenever the Chamber would permit me.
8 JUDGE PARKER: The position, then, in respect of the motion of
9 today's date of the Defence for the reception of a number of documents as
10 exhibits will be necessarily deferred to allow the Prosecution to respond.
11 I take it the parties would expect the Chamber to deal with it on the
12 basis of the written motion and the written response.
13 MS. SOMERS: As the Chamber did with ours, as well. Thank you.
14 JUDGE PARKER: There will be no need for a further hearing just
15 for that. Very well.
16 And subject to that, I take it the case for the Defence is closed.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. First of
18 all to you, to my colleagues, thank you for your attention and your
19 patience over the past 19 days. Thank you.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. We have been impressed
21 that there has been such attention, if I might say so, to the need to deal
22 with matters expeditiously. And we are grateful for that.
23 One matter the Chamber would mention, there has been a number of
24 references in the evidence to sunrise and nightfall, sunset. There has
25 been no specific evidence. It's a matter that could be taken into account
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 as a matter of judicial knowledge. It's a matter that turns essentially
2 on matters of objective geography and the like and statistical data is
3 available. And I believe the Chamber's legal officer has placed one
4 possible source of that in the hands of both Prosecution and Defence
5 counsel to see if they are content that the Chamber might accept that as a
6 proper indication of the times in Dubrovnik of sunrise and sunset and the
7 like on the 6th of December 1991.
8 Do you have any view on that, Mr. Petrovic?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we had an opportunity
10 to see the document. We cannot check it, but we do believe, nevertheless,
11 that it had been acquired from reliable sources and that therefore it can
12 serve as a basis for the Honourable Chamber for making judgement and
13 conclusions pertaining to this area as necessary. Thank you.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. It indicates, if I could record it,
15 that the beginning of civil twilight on Friday, the 6th of December 1991
16 was 0631, and sunrise was at 0703 hours; that sunset was at 1614 hours,
17 and that the end of civil twilight was 1646 hours. There is also
18 information on the moon's transition.
19 Ms. Somers, do you have any view on this information and the
20 proposition that it might be accepted by the Tribunal?
21 MS. SOMERS: Thank you for presenting it. This is the first I've
22 seen it, Your Honour. In principle, the source certainly looks to be a
23 reliable source. And I have no immediate objection. I would be
24 interested actually to see if there is a similar source that exists in the
25 region. But this does look like it certainly would be a valuable basis
1 for the Chamber to proceed upon.
2 JUDGE PARKER: The source I might add is that magical thing called
3 the Internet, so if there is some other basis --
4 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry, the source that the Internet refers to
5 looks certainly to be a reliable one. I believe there do exist as well a
6 region similar types of observation centres. And if we are able to find
7 an additional one, we'll certainly notify the Chamber and Defence, if the
8 Chamber will permit.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
10 Now, I have just been reminded that we have a number of Defence
11 documents which are marked for identification but not yet exhibited. I
12 might list them in the transcript; and if the parties would give a very
13 short written submission on them, because I assume you may not at the
14 moment have them immediately in your mind, either party, a short written
15 submission in the next three days or so as to the admissibility of each.
16 I'll list them as I understand them to be, Mr. Petrovic.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that will be done.
18 JUDGE PARKER: D13, D14, D15, D16, D18, D30, D63, D72, D73, and
19 D74. Now, I've got to say I don't remember and can't vouch for each of
20 those, but they seem to be documents at the moment that are still only
21 marked for identification. So there are quite a few of them, and it would
22 be important to get them clarified as to whether or not they should be
23 received in evidence.
24 A number of photographs were the first ones, newspaper articles,
25 minutes of sessions of the Government of Montenegro, et cetera. So a
1 number of documents to be looked at by both parties in a short written
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we shall give our
4 response as soon as possible.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Subject to that, those questions yet to be resolved
6 about admissibility of evidence, the Defence case is closed.
7 Now, Ms. Somers, there was a further matter then that you
9 MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour, that is the issue of rebuttal. And
10 I wish to ask the Chamber's leave to have until later this afternoon to
11 indicate whether or not the Prosecution will indeed bring a rebuttal
12 witness. I would be grateful for it. Thank you.
13 JUDGE PARKER: That witness could be heard tomorrow, perhaps a
14 little later in the morning if you did decide. Would that be convenient?
15 MS. SOMERS: It may. It does not depend necessarily on me. It is
16 a logistical issue as well, as the Chamber may know. So if it is not
17 possible, only because we had worked on a completely different schedule,
18 as I'm sure you're aware. If, for any reason, it is not, then we would
19 ask simply for first thing, if it's possible, Monday. And no later --
20 JUDGE PARKER: The second thing, Monday, we're listed at 2.15 in
21 the afternoon, I think.
22 MS. SOMERS: No later than Monday, brief, extremely narrow, and
23 hopefully very quick.
24 JUDGE PARKER: I think it would be preferable from the point of
25 view of the Defence team if it were possible tomorrow. It would then free
1 up the Defence team to attend to other matters.
2 MS. SOMERS: Can I ask the Chamber what would be the latest
3 tomorrow, if in fact -- is there a possibility if logistically it is
4 difficult for reasons beyond our control, is there an afternoon
6 JUDGE PARKER: We are listed for tomorrow morning. And can I say
7 that I have a commitment in the early afternoon. So if I'm right in
8 guessing who might be the witness, it would be confined to two short
9 issues, the evidence, wouldn't it?
10 MS. SOMERS: Very short.
11 JUDGE PARKER: There would be some perhaps cross-examination on
12 those two matters. I would think it may be possible between as late as
13 midday tomorrow.
14 MS. SOMERS: Starting as late as midday. Thank you.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, allow me to express my
17 concern and skepticism that this is feasible to happen tomorrow given the
18 fact that we don't know who the witness would be and could be, and what
19 the testimony would be about. So if I received this information during
20 this afternoon, and if we get it late in the afternoon, I don't believe
21 that we can do the cross-examinations efficiently tomorrow because we
22 cannot even guess who the person in question is and to what circumstances
23 the person is going to testify.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Let me say, Mr. Petrovic, that I have proceeded on
25 the assumption that the witness will be Admiral Jokic and that he will be
1 called to deal with the two particular matters which the Chamber has
2 already indicated the Prosecution could have leave to call him about by
3 way of rebuttal. And it's on that basis that I have assumed that he might
4 be available tomorrow and that his evidence will be of short duration and
5 any cross-examination will be of short duration.
6 And I think that you would be well aware of and familiar with
7 those issues. If it's some other witness and some other issues, I would
8 entirely accept what you're putting. Yes.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That was
10 very helpful for the Defence team.
11 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, there is one more matter, if I may.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
13 MS. SOMERS: It would be an oral motion solely by the Prosecution,
14 it is not a joint motion. There had been discussion of a site visit. And
15 although I realise there are always logistical issues, should the Chamber
16 find that it is logistically feasible, the Prosecution supports and would
17 file a subsequent written submission, supports the idea of a site, as it
18 were, crime-scene visit and location visit. It is not -- it would not be
19 the first time it has been done in this institution. I think it would be
20 very beneficial. And it is subject, as I understand it, to all practical
21 and logistical considerations, but we will submit this within the next 24
22 hours. I just wanted to make sure the Chamber knew our position on it.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that, Ms. Somers. You will readily
24 appreciate that it is not an easy matter to arrange. It takes judicial
25 time and other time to accommodate. It is not a cheap exercise. And it
1 would be undertaken if the Chamber were persuaded that it really would be
2 of material assistance in determining a range of factual matters that are
3 in dispute in this case. But we would certainly like to hear the Defence
4 position about that. What would be contemplated, of course, is a view of
5 the Dubrovnik and some of the particular localities that have featured in
6 the evidence and the immediate surroundings of Dubrovnik.
7 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, fully aware of all the
9 problems and difficulties implied in this context, and the time necessary
10 and high cost, the Defence quite simply would like to leave this entirely
11 up to you to decide. If the Honourable Chamber believes that this will
12 contribute to clarifying certain issues, the Defence will, of course as we
13 did so far, honour your decision be it as it may. But at this point in
14 time, the Defence cannot say now whether it is necessary or not. We leave
15 it up to you to decide whether this is necessary to shed more light on the
16 circumstances surrounding this case.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. If there were to be a view or a site
18 visit, it clearly should precede final oral submissions by the parties so
19 that the final oral submissions could take account of the view. And it
20 would be important for at least one counsel from both the Defence and
21 Prosecution teams to be with the Trial Chamber for the visit for obvious
22 reasons. And it would be important for each team to have a list of
23 matters which each team considers should be viewed by the Trial Chamber so
24 that we could be sure in the visit of seeing all matters considered
25 important to view by both sides. I foreshadow those matters so that
1 people would understand how we would approach the matter.
2 That brings me to another issue which is of interest. Clearly we
3 may not assemble now as a Chamber unless the Prosecution is to call
4 rebuttal evidence. We may not assemble again as a Chamber to hear any
5 further evidence. And so we could look at the question of forward
6 planning on that basis.
7 When this matter was last discussed, both Prosecution and Defence
8 were concerned that more time would be valuable for the preparation of
9 final written submissions. And with that in mind, the Chamber would be
10 prepared to extend the time that it had foreshadowed for written
11 submissions to be filed no later than Monday, the 30th of August, which is
12 a week later than was earlier planned. And that will be the order of the
13 Trial Chamber.
14 If there were to be an inspection, it may well be one that could
15 then be accommodated during that week, the week commencing Monday, the
16 30th of August. If that were the case, final oral submissions could be
17 taken sometime during the week following. Now, in fairness to everybody
18 not on the Monday, but probably on the Wednesday and Thursday, the 8th and
19 9th of September. As indicated earlier, given the extent of written
20 submissions, to allow the possibility of a day's submissions from each
21 side would appear to be an adequate provision. So they would then be the
22 plans of the Trial Chamber at the present time. While it is unfortunate
23 that the August break comes now, on this plan the accused should not be
24 disadvantaged because the time, I'm afraid, the Chamber has imposed on
25 counsel to prepare their final written submissions. So we would hope that
1 the delay will be no longer because of the vacation. And we can then move
2 as quickly as possible after that.
3 Now, with respect to a view, we will receive your motion when it
4 is filed, Ms. Somers, and we will make an analysis of the issues and the
5 importance. And in view of what has been said by counsel, come to a
6 decision quickly, and you will be advised by our legal officer whether
7 there will be one. And that will be done quickly so that it will be
8 possible to make the necessary arrangements. And as I've indicated, that
9 ought to follow as quickly as possible after the receipt of the final
10 written submissions as we can manage. Probably two or perhaps three days
11 would be the time to be allocated to the view. It's not altogether clear
12 to me yet how many sites would need to be visited and what time would be
13 necessary. But allow, I would think, up to three days for that. And can
14 I make it clear, there is yet to be a decision whether it is necessary and
15 whether it can be arranged. So don't go off on the basis that there is to
16 be one; we're merely looking ahead at that contingent possibility.
17 Are there any further matters that should be raised at this time?
18 If not, we will await your communication, Ms. Somers, on the matter of
19 evidence with the strong encouragement to it being arranged for tomorrow
20 if the Chamber's anticipation of who the witness might be is correct. And
21 if so, it could be arranged to commence at noon, the middle of the day.
22 We will await your written motion on the question of a view. We will
23 await the parties' written submissions on the matters of evidence that
24 remain outstanding and we will deal with those in due course. And we will
25 communicate our decision with respect to a view as soon as we come to it.
1 It remains to thank counsel for their assistance that we have had
2 to this time and the increasing spirit of concern and cooperation that the
3 proceedings could be concluded in as quick a time as reasonable so as to
4 avoid any unnecessary further delay and anxiety for the accused, and
5 frankly any unnecessary loss and waste of time for all of us.
6 The Chamber will adjourn now.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.05 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Friday, the 23rd day of July,