1 Tuesday, 25 February 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.13 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Madam Registrar, would you
6 please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Stanislav Galic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Before we continue, I'd first like to deal with the documents
11 tendered through the last witness, but I'm not quite sure whether the
12 videotapes are ready thus that we know exactly how they are tendered and
13 how they will be admitted into evidence.
14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar suggests to me and I think it's a
16 very wise suggestion that we wait until all the copies and the
17 compilations are available in the way in which the parties intend to
18 tender them and then deal with all the documents and videotapes at the
19 same time.
20 Meanwhile, I inform the parties that the first BBC tape, so to
21 say, has been copied and is available for the parties. The second BBC
22 tape is on its way to be copied and we expect them to be delivered to the
23 parties today. That also means that if there would be any -- if the
24 parties would insist on accepting the -- what was offered by the witness
25 yesterday, that is to review the tapes, that a start could be made but
1 only in respect of the BBC one tape because that's the only one available
2 at this very moment.
3 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Very
5 respectfully, the Defence doesn't quite see the problem in relation to the
6 copies of the videotapes because what Defence wishes to produce is the
7 compilated extract of what they have already submitted, 8 or 9 extracts
8 that we have already submitted in the examination-in-chief and I think on
9 the other side what could be tendered are just excerpts that were viewed
10 in the cross-examination so I think at the level of the evidence, I do not
11 see what the problem is well evident because there are many, many more
12 extracts compared to the ones that were viewed here in the
13 Chamber -- before the Chamber.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I remember that you had 9, I think it was 9
15 sequences played. They are on a separate tape, I do understand.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] They're on one videotape. We
17 put it all on one tape which is in the hands of the registrar, so as far
18 as we are concerned, Mr. President, we would tender that reconstituted
19 tape and the copy, I believe, was handed over to the Prosecution. Thank
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then the Prosecution is not tendering any video apart
22 from -- no additional videos will be tendered, Mr. Ierace.
23 MR. IERACE: I don't know, Mr. President. We've so far tendered
24 two compilation tapes. One of those compilation tapes has on it only one
25 segment, what one might call the French convoy. The other has, I think 7
1 or 9 excerpts. We may, for convenience sake, copy the -- what we might
2 call the brown Mercedes excerpt on to a separate tape as well. That is in
3 evidence that has been shown to the witness and as I indicated yesterday,
4 we have a transcript now for that as well.
5 Beyond that, president, the issues are whether somewhere on the
6 tapes there is an image of the crater which, according to the witness, was
7 involved with the market explosion.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that is a separate issue it's a matter of
9 whether the Prosecution seeks to tender that at a later stage if it exists
10 on that tape or not. So there would be no need to wait on a decision of
11 the admission into evidence of the tapes that are available now. Is the
12 part played by you, is that the -- the quality, is that there's no problem
13 with the quality.
14 MR. IERACE: That is the other issue, Mr. President., in
15 particular in relation to the shelling of the parliamentary offices. The
16 excerpt which the Prosecution has so far tendered has a lot of distortion
17 on it which is not on the original tape and I would seek to replace that
18 segment with a cleaner copy.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then if the parties would please it's clear
20 already for the Defence but I'd like to have a very short brief note that
21 says this version of this videotape is tendered and let's then deal with
22 it in the next few days.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, but we will
24 have a problem because bearing in mind our position, we handed over the
25 tape with 9 excerpts. Each one of these excerpts has been viewed in the
1 courtroom. On the other side, now the Prosecution says that they will
2 deliver a sort of best of with all 9 or 10 excerpts but we have not viewed
3 them before the Chamber. We have seen some of them.
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... That's exactly
5 the reason why I suggest that we'll wait until we know for certain what it
6 exactly is and what version, what quality, and then deal with the matter
7 as a whole. I think that a delayed decision on that would not harm the
8 interest of either party.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next issue we still have to deal with is the
11 time available for the parties to examine their experts. The Chamber has
12 compared the number of witnesses, the subject matter of expert witnesses
13 and we have given a decision already in respect of some expert witnesses
14 and how much time would be available. I'm, for example, referring to the
15 background witnesses of which the last one still has to be examined that's
16 Mr. Terzic. On those witnesses that are still to be examined, and where
17 the parties have explained to the Chamber how much time they will need,
18 the Chamber has considered how much time will be granted.
19 In respect of the expert witness, Mr. Kuljic, the Chamber
20 considers that 45 minutes for the Defence and two hours for the
21 Prosecution would be fair. In respect of the expert witness Vilicic, who
22 is the first one to be examined as far as I understand, the Chamber has
23 considered how much time would be needed and in a very strict regime, has
24 decided to give five and a half hours to both parties.
25 In respect to the expert witness Radinovic, the -- it might be a
1 matter of language but both parties, five and a half hours.
2 Then in respect of Radinovic, the Chamber has granted three hours,
3 the Defence has asked for more. The Chamber has decided that both Defence
4 and Prosecution will be granted four hours in respect of Radinovic. The
5 Chamber is aware that viewing the list of documents the Defence seeks to
6 tender through that witness and -- seems to be a lot of new documents that
7 might cause some problems, at the same time and under normal
8 circumstances, the Chamber considers it the normal course of events that
9 the documents on which an expert relies, that they are included in the
10 footnote material, for example, and that is presented as an annex to or
11 footnotes in the report.
12 The Chamber is, of course, not aware what these documents exactly
13 are all about, but the Chamber suggests to the Defence that a system of
14 glossary would be added to that and the expert witness would be invited
15 just to write a few words for each document indicating for what reason
16 this expert thinks that is an important or a relevant document. That
17 could also be done for a group of documents.
18 If, for example, we would see 10 combat reports or 30 combat
19 reports of, let's say, March 1993, and if the expert will think that these
20 are relevant documents because it illustrates the fierce fighting during
21 that month in the front, well, let's say in the Stup area, then just a
22 short comment could be added to those 30 documents saying: "Illustration
23 of fierce fighting in Stup in the month of March 1993 or 1994." That
24 could also facilitate the introduction of these documents. The Chamber of
25 course has not taken any decision on whether it will admit these documents
1 or not but the Chamber is aware that if, during four hours, you want to
2 introduce 100 documents, that that would be two and a half minutes for
3 each document and therefore this is a suggestion to the Defence how to
4 deal with it in such a way that there is still a chance of these documents
5 to be admitted without using all its time on just presenting documents.
6 The Chamber also thinks that the Defence should inform the
7 Prosecution as to what documents will be tendered into evidence so that
8 there's no uncertainty that the Prosecution can prepare for
9 cross-examination, that they can know what they can expect in respect of
10 these documents. That was about the expert witness Radinovic. We -- I
11 think on Terzic, we have -- I first go through the list and then give you
12 an opportunity, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, to make observations.
13 In respect of Terzic, I think there's ten minutes for the Defence
14 left. The Chamber deems one hour for the Prosecution sufficient time to
15 cross-examine Mr. Terzic. In respect of Radovanovic, two hours for the
16 Defence, two hours for the Prosecution should be sufficient.
17 The Chamber emphasises that whenever an expert witness appears,
18 that the Chamber has thoroughly read the report and that there is no need
19 to make the expert witness repeat what is already in his or her report.
20 If there are any observations in respect of this decision, please make
22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, first of
24 all, thank you and as far as the expert Radinovic is concerned, we have
25 time to confer in this respect. We will ask the expert to make a kind of
1 vulgate and if he can proceed to make as brief a summary as possible, a
2 kind of vulgarisation as we've already explained now, what the Defence
3 does not wish to happen is that this summary becomes a subject of dispute
4 between the parties, that is when things are being summarised, necessarily
5 things become condensed and then positions become entrenched and we do not
6 wish that this starts off discussions whatsoever. That was the first
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Clarify the
9 position of the Chamber. I think it's not that much a summary not even a
10 brief summary but within the Chamber, the words -- I don't know how to
11 pronounce it in English but in the ancient, in the history of law on the
12 European continent, I think it was Roman law, glossatori that means brief
13 remarks attached to a text. So not a summary but just a brief comment.
14 It could be three, four, five words, might be and that's what the Chamber
15 has in mind, not to a summary but rather a reference to relevance
16 or -- well, what is the use of looking at this document in view of the
17 case of the parties.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But Mr. President, we will
19 then ask the expert Radinovic to be his own glossatori or glossary maker
20 so we will do this. Another point was the point of time. We took note of
21 your decision and we will have to discuss it with General Galic who was
22 trying to say something to his counsel earlier and the third important
23 point was that of the exhibits.
24 Your decision places us in a slightly delicate decision because it
25 frequently appears that things are clear but only it is in the course of
1 the session and we don't think that it is necessary to tender such and
2 such an exhibit, we don't think that's necessary to tender such an exhibit
3 to add to the pile. So I'm not in a position to say that I will tender
4 everything to make sure that everything is there, I think you have to
5 understand that our position could change, that is, evolve and develop.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... As far as
8 documents are concerned, let's keep in mind that we are talking about
9 expert witnesses and where the case law is that facts on which they base
10 themselves should be established should not be contested anymore. So an
11 expert witness is not a vehicle to establish a lot of facts but to hear
12 the expert opinion on facts established or sometimes on facts clearly
13 assumed in order to follow the reasoning of the expert.
14 Yes, Mr. Stamp.
15 MR. STAMP: May it please, Mr. President, Your Honours, may I
16 respectfully add that, of course, we accept and adopt the decision in
17 respect of the time and we observe, I would like to observe nonetheless
18 that I would respectfully apply for liberty to review the time afforded
19 the Prosecution depending upon what happens.
20 Mr. President, you have indicated that the report has already been
21 thoroughly read by the Court, therefore five and a half hours for the
22 Defence logically would be something in addition to it and in furtherance
23 of the report and it might leave the Prosecution in difficulty to have the
24 same time.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- the Chamber does understand that and as you
1 might have noticed, that during the Prosecution's case, sometimes the
2 party introducing a certain report took more time than the cross-examining
3 party. This is, for example, what happened for the expert Phillips. The
4 Chamber has also taken into consideration the type of information
5 contained in the report, so it's not without reason that for Terzic
6 there's only ten minutes for the Defence left and one hour for the
8 We have seen, during the presentation of the Prosecution's case,
9 that it very much depends on the subject matter on how to divide time
10 among the parties; therefore, for Vilicic, it's for quite sometime, it's
11 for both parties but I add to that that we want to hear expert opinion
12 rather than repeat a repetition of the report and establishing of facts
13 and in respect of Vilicic, also taking into consideration how much time
14 there was used during the examination of Zecevic, Kovacs and Higgs which
15 are, more or less, the counterparts, I would say, of Vilicic, there the
16 parties took approximately the same time for examination-in-chief and
17 cross-examination. There was also then the Chamber had thoroughly read
18 the report so this is I explained just a few more reasons as you may see
19 the Chamber has thoroughly considered a lot of aspects before granting
20 time to the parties.
21 MR. STAMP: As it please, Mr. President, I'm sure the court will
22 apply its discretion appropriately, Mr. President.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, merely to sum
24 up and I only want to know this with regard to Witness Vilicic, we have
25 decided to ask him to repeat certain things but to put them in lay
1 language because he has given us mathematical formulae and they are the
2 difficult to grasp and therefore we shall ask him to explain certain
3 things so that we shall be doing it only to have him repeat some of these
4 things in a language otherwise there will be no repetition, thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I expect, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if, for example, you
6 would look at page 23 of the English version of the report, "the final
7 solution of the above integral can be formulated as equation B," I think
8 it's of no use to present every single detail of this formula to the
10 On most parts, the expert has explained clearly which elements are
11 contained in a formula, which elements have been taken into consideration.
12 Don't expect the Chamber to first follow a course in mathematics or in
13 whatever and then being able to analyse each and every part of the formula
14 but the general meaning of the formula, of course, has been explained in
15 the report, tables are quite clear as angles and distances and swathes and
16 the Chamber has carefully considered that.
17 If there would be any specific question on the content of a
18 formula for example Y on the lowest line you say it's a cosine instead of
19 sine, then I would expect that the expert from the Prosecution would
20 whisper that question into the ear of the cross-examining party and if,
21 finally, there would be disagreement which I would say would be
22 disagreement between the experts than disagreement between the parties
23 because I take it that with your education in law you might not be able to
24 follow every single detail of the formula, then of course the Chamber will
25 have to consider that and see its way through such disagreements.
1 Therefore, limit the repetition. The Chamber was fully aware to
2 know the distance between the velocity at firing and the drop velocity and
3 all these kinds of things we really spent a lot of time in preparing the
4 same trajectories, pictures are quite clear, there's no need to repeat all
6 Yes, Mr. Mundis.
7 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, thank you. I rise briefly to make a
8 few comments with respect to the expert, General Radinovic. The
9 Prosecution well comes the Trial Chamber's suggestions to the Defence with
10 respect to a glossary but again our position is and has been consistently
11 that we will need perhaps a significant period of time to explore with
12 this witness both his report as well as the underlying sources thereunder.
13 We also have expressed some concern with respect to the large number of
14 potential exhibits and I understand that that is covered under the
15 proposal which the Chamber just put forth but we also would like to
16 stress, as Your Honour did just a few moments ago, that the law presumes
17 that expert reports are based upon established facts and if the Defence is
18 at this point coming in with approximately 130 proposed exhibits to be
19 tendered through this expert, the Prosecution simply would like to
20 preserve its right to seek additional time both with respect to
21 cross-examining the witness on that large number of exhibits, but also to
22 explore with him in length, if necessary, the extent to which those
23 additional exhibits may or may not have been incorporated into his report.
24 Again, we have consistently taken the view that this statement of
25 this witness is not necessarily supported by or does not necessarily refer
1 to the source material which he indicates he relied upon. And in the
2 event that he then relies upon an additional large number of exhibits,
3 that may require us to seek leave to extend the period of time to
4 cross-examine him on those issues.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that, but the Chamber has
6 already expressed in view of these documents that the Chamber does not
7 know what the content is. The Chamber has not seen the glossary. That
8 means that if 50 documents, you would say this is just a demonstrate that
9 there was ongoing combat during two or three months, then of course we
10 would first see whether that is in dispute, there might be no dispute at
11 all about it so the Chamber is also walking in a -- in the dark more or
12 less in this respect.
13 We have given a decision how much time need and of course
14 especially on an expert witness, for who it's still unclear what is the
15 basis for his expert opinion, we'll have to consider what happens during
16 the examination, but that is, I would say, more the case as far as this
17 expert witness is concerned as in respect to other expert witnesses where
18 we have not a similar problem of so many documents still to be tendered or
19 introduced or tendered from the bar table -- we are not sure on how the
20 Defence intends to do that.
21 At the same time, the Chamber was concerned about a huge number
22 and the time available for the Defence and therefore suggested how to
23 smooth the introduction, emphasising at the same time that this does not
24 say anything about whether we will admit or not admit the documents in
25 evidence and finally I'd make one observation that is that as from several
1 decisions of this Chamber may have become clear that the -- I would say
2 the classical distinction between the weighing of evidence and admission
3 of evidence which is, of course in the common law tradition, more strict
4 especially if you are working jury trials that that Chamber is more
5 flexible of that and sometimes indicates that although admitted, that
6 while weighing the evidence, it might be of greater or lesser importance.
7 Mr. Mundis.
8 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, if I could just two issues very
9 quickly if Mr. --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, did you want to respond to this
11 issue we just -- yes.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Only very briefly. What I
13 wanted to say with regard to the request of the Prosecution was that the
14 time will depend, of course, on the substance of what we shall hear from
15 him. Thank you. No, I was again shorter -- I said that what is requested
16 from the witness -- it does not matter. Yes, exactly. The -- his
17 effort -- hermeneutic report. That from the witness, -- will determine --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis, any -- you had two other issues.
19 MR. MUNDIS: Very briefly, Mr. President. First, it -- a point of
20 clarification if you would. My understanding is that the Defence will be
21 providing us with two distinct documents, one being a glossary prepared by
22 the expert and a second document being a Defence proposal with respect to
23 how to proceed with respect to the exhibits. If I could, from the Trial
24 Chamber, I would particularly -- or it would be particularly helpful if we
25 could have a date by which those two documents would be available to the
1 Prosecution in one of the official languages of the Tribunal and second,
2 in light of the Chamber's decision announced earlier this morning with
3 respect to time limits, if we could have from the Defence an -- a date on
4 which they expect the expert Radinovic to commence his testimony. It
5 would appear that that would be in light of the Chamber's ruling, Monday
6 of next week, but if we could have that confirmed, and also a deadline for
7 when we would expect these documents from the Defence, that would be
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if the -- I invite the parties during the next
10 break that the Defence indicates on what date they would have the -- let's
11 say the exhibits and the glossary ready and if there is still disagreement
12 on the date, the Chamber will give a decision.
13 As far as the appearance of the expert witness is concerned, there
14 of course we cannot finally take a decision but if you would please
15 indicate to the Prosecution when you expect to call the expert witness
16 Radinovic. Yes.
17 Then, is the Defence ready to call its next expert witness? I do
18 understand that that will be Mr. Vilicic; is that correct? Then, Madam
19 usher, could you please escort Dr. Vilicic into the courtroom.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Dr. Vilicic.
22 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You are responding in English but --
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is this an indication that you want to testify in
1 English or you would prefer to testify in your native language.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'd rather give my answers in my
3 native language.
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... You give your
5 answers in your native language.
6 Before testifying in this Court, Dr. Vilicic, the Rules of
7 Procedure and Evidence require you to make the solemn declaration that you
8 will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The text
9 will be handed to you now by madam usher may I invite you to make that
10 solemn declaration.
11 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
12 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 WITNESS: JANKO VILICIC
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, please be seated.
16 Dr. Vilicic, you will first be examined by the counsel for the
17 Defence. Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Examined by Ms. Pilipovic.
20 Q. Good morning, Dr. Vilicic.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. Before I start with my questions, I'd like to ask you to give us
23 your full name and a few words about your professional training?
24 A. I'm a mechanical engineer, Janko Vilicic. I have a doctorate in
25 sciences I graduated from mechanical engineering in Belgrade, military
1 mechanical engineering then I completed l'ecole superieure nationale
2 d'armement in France and I also graduated from the engineering mechanical
3 academy in Zagreb.
4 Q. Dr. Vilicic, when you tell us that you defended your doctorate at
5 the technical and military engineering academy in Zagreb, can you tell us
6 what was the subject of your doctoral thesis?
7 A. It was a contribution --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask you to make a short break between question
9 and answer. You're speaking the same language and that means that the
10 interpreters will not be able to interpret all you say if you are moving
11 too quickly.
12 THE WITNESS: I shall repeat. My dissertation had to do with the
13 contribution to the study of combustion in high performance artillery
14 weapons and their effect on the ballistics of those weapons.
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us where did you work?
17 A. As of 1958 I worked at the technical institute head, ballistics
18 sectors, head of the computer sciences sectors and finally I was a deputy
19 chief of R and D for the ground forces.
20 Q. Doctor, in addition to this, were you also a lecturer?
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and witness please make a break
22 between question and answer.
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I am
25 afraid -- many people forget about this but please try to concentrate.
2 THE WITNESS: From 1961, I was assistant lecturer and lecturer and
3 professor at the faculty of mechanical engineer of the university of
4 Belgrade. I also taught at a mechanical engineering faculty in Sarajevo.
5 I taught at the military academy in Belgrade, post-graduate studies at the
6 engineering military academy in Zagreb. Few two years I lectured in
7 Algiers and a subject I taught was the design of ballistics systems. I
8 was also the mentor for a number of graduate, post-graduate papers,
9 students. I was also a member of a number of commissions, assessing
10 doctoral dissertations in the field of armaments.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Q. Did you also take part in some practical experiments, if I may ask
13 you that, alongside your theoretical work?
14 A. Yes, practically I was, throughout my work, engaged in the
15 research and study and testing of weaponry when I say weaponry, I mean
16 conventional armaments, that is, projectiles, artillery systems. I
17 participated in a number of expert studies of extraordinary events
18 occurring in the -- when weapons are used.
19 Q. Thank you. Professor Vilicic, with Dr. Miroljub Vukasinovic and
20 Professor Aleksandar Stamatovic, and you told us that he died 15 days ago,
21 that you did an expert analysis with him, can you tell us, do you still
22 stand by it?
23 A. I do. We did the expert analysis. We went through all the
24 relevant documentation, all the material that was sent to us, and
25 subsequent information we received from the Defence, witness testimonies
1 and so on, we completed this expert analysis and I handed it over to the
2 Defence in September.
3 Q. Thank you. Professor, can you tell us --
4 MR. STAMP: [Previous translation continues] ... September 2002 or
5 is it 2001. I ask because the English version of the report is dated
7 JUDGE ORIE: I have a --
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Professor, can you tell us when did you complete it?
10 A. We finished our analysis in June 2002 and as you know, I
11 participated three times in the examination of expert witnesses. On the
12 basis of -- we studied that material and we concluded there was no need to
13 make any changes in our analysis and we submitted it after we finished
14 with the examination of all those other documents in September 2002. That
15 date is, I suppose, a mistake because ...
16 JUDGE ORIE: The title page in English bears the year, it says
17 Belgrade 2002. There is the -- on page 60 we find Belgrade June 26th,
18 2001. Is that last year on page 60 a mistake?
19 THE WITNESS: A mistake, yes, quite obviously.
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation].
21 Q. So Professor, will you please tell us what is a mortar?
22 A. A mortar is briefly a weapon with initial angles of 40, 45 degrees
23 so that the drop angles are also larger so the drop angles are over 45,
24 the minimum angles are over 45 degrees and sometimes even over 80 degrees.
25 Q. And can you tell us, a mortar as a weapon, what parts does it
1 consist of?
2 A. If I may, I brought a number of pictures with me, but they might
3 be time-consuming. If you allow me, perhaps I could put it on the ELMO to
4 show it.
5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, with your leave,
6 the expert wishes to illustrate.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll have some pictures --
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] On the ELMO.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, at least we have two pictures of a mortar in the
10 report. If they can be used, fine, but if ...
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can use them, it's the same
12 photograph, it is a 120 millimetre mortar. Its principal parts are the
13 barrel, the barrel, the base plate, the bipod and the sighting device.
14 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. Professor, can you explain what are the sights, what is a sighting
17 A. Unfortunately, in our paper, one cannot see it properly so that I
18 will use this photograph, this is an older type of an 82 millimetre mortar
19 and I will show you the sighting device which is an integral part and
20 which is firmly fixed to the bipod of it. As such, it allows to range the
21 fire, to fix the target, and direct the mortar towards the target in case
22 of new sights. When we have old sighting devices, we do not have the
23 optical sights but the so-called collimator which is used to affix the
24 barrel to a point in relation to which later on, when fire is opened, the
25 corrections are made because when a shot has been fired, the barrel jolts
1 until the bipod is stabilised and so that the initial values of the mortar
2 change from one shot to the other.
3 Q. Thank you. In your analysis, you quote two types of mortars, that
4 is, 82 millimetres, 120 and a Howitzer type. Can you tell us why did you
5 mention a Howitzer and can one tell apart the effect of a shell fired by a
6 mortar and by a Howitzer?
7 A. There are two reasons why --
8 MR. STAMP: No objection to the question and I think we can return
9 to the question but there is one part of the answer to the last question
10 which is not on the transcript and since we might have to move pretty
11 quickly, I would just ask that the witness could repeat it will do it
12 until something is stabilised.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat it. It's the speed.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, when there is a firing that
15 happens, when a mortar is fired, the base plate, until the base plate is
16 stabilised, there is a change of initial elements, initial values,
17 particularly elevation. What happens is that the barrel will change its
18 initial angle, angle of firing.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you well that the base plate does not
20 exactly return in its original position; is that -- after firing?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The base plate, because it's a
22 nonelastic system, when the firing happens, the pressure of the gunpowder
23 gases will make a pressure on the soil which is why the base plate will be
24 embedded in the soil and this is what we call the stabilisation. Several
25 projectiles having been fired, the base plate will become embedded and
1 stable and will not shift its position. Depending on the ground it will
2 continue to sink up to a point.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Q. So Professor, my question was the reason why you also gave us the
5 example of a Howitzer and is it possible to tell apart the firing from a
6 mortar and firing from a Howitzer, and if that's so, on the basis of what?
7 A. We gave the Howitzer as an example for two reasons as I've already
8 mentioned. The first reason is that the Howitzer shell is 122
9 millimetres and in its calibre, it is similar to 120 millimetre shell from
10 a mortar but the main reason -- the main difference is its effect on the
11 target. This projectile, the Howitzer projectile, has a higher drop
12 velocity because of which it goes deeper into the soil when we compare it
13 to a mortar shell, if it is the same kind of soil.
14 The second reason why we mentioned the Howitzer is that we
15 noticed, we observed that the experts of the United Nations -- sorry of
16 UNPROFOR, the UNPROFOR experts, when they assessed one incident of
17 shelling, because of a lack of the firing tables for a mortar, what they
18 used was that they used a Howitzer firing table. I think that that was
19 Verdi. I think that was the name of the lieutenant or captain, Verdi, a
20 French officer who was conducting this analysis of one shelling incident.
21 I have this material, I was given it by the Defence, and we used
22 them. We examined them.
23 Q. Professor, I followed you carefully, your answer, but I don't
24 think that I do have your answer, full answer on the differences between
25 the mortar shell and a Howitzer shell. How can you tell the difference
1 between them?
2 A. Well, there are several differences but the main difference is
3 first of all in the mass. The mortar shell of 120 millimetre is about
4 12.6 to 16 kilograms in terms of its size and mass, while the projectile
5 122 millimetre is about 21 kilograms mass. The difference is also in the
6 volume of the explosive inside and as I've already said, considering that
7 the Howitzer has a higher initial velocity and also a higher drop velocity
8 when it hits the ground, Howitzer shell compared to the mortar shell goes
9 deeper in the soil and it gives a bigger crater, it produces a larger
10 crater. And it is less efficient, less effective in terms of destruction
11 but -- or rather it is more destructive in terms of terrain but it is less
12 effective in terms of live personnel lethality.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last part of
14 the answer.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, could you please repeat the last part of
16 your answer and may I again stress how important it is for the -- both
17 Defence counsel and you, Dr. Vilicic, to make a break.
18 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, what I can
20 see is that the French booth has some difficulty in following the
21 technical nature of this and the speed and I think that we have to be very
22 careful at what is happening so I'm saying this now so that we don't have
23 any problems later.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we certainly will, but slowing down will
25 certainly assist all booth to get more time to translate the words of the
2 Could you then please repeat the last part of your answer. I
3 read in the transcript that you said that, "It's less efficient, less
4 effective in terms of destruction but -- or rather it is more destructive
5 in terms of terrain but it's less effective in terms of live personnel,"
6 and what did, did you add anything to that.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I said, what I said was that it
8 is more or less the same calibre, 122 is, more or less, the same as the
9 120 millimetre shell. So it is less effective when compared to a similar
10 calibre shell.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Dr. Vilicic, it might help if you wait until the
12 text on your screen stops moving and then give the answer. Yes?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation].
16 Q. Thank you. Professor Vilicic, can you tell us, very briefly, what
17 is the difference between an 82 millimetre mortar and 120 millimetre
19 A. The main difference is the calibre, the calibre; therefore, also
20 in the mass of the projectile. An 82 millimetre shell has got a mass of
21 about 3 kilograms --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, in your report, you give details of the
23 mass being 3 kilograms and the total mass of a 120 millimetre being 12
24 kilograms so if you just refer to there's a difference in mass, we all
25 read your report so there's no need to repeat exactly the figures and that
1 speeds up your testimony.
2 But may I, because you are now referring to, I would say, the
3 pages 3 and 5 of your report, I've just one small question in between
4 where you already mentioned the drop velocity. I took it that on page 3,
5 table 1, you explain what the letters stand for. I took it, while
6 studying your report, that VC is the drop velocity. I see that VO is the
7 muzzle velocity. I do not have any explanation for VC but I took that to
8 be the drop velocity and also in the other tables.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Q. Professor, on page 3 of your report you gave the main
12 characteristics of a shell, that is the page 3 of the expert report in
13 B/C/S and my question is: Can you tell us of what parts is a shell made?
14 Professor, you gave us a drawing here, you placed it on the ELMO, can you
15 please clarify, tell us what these parts are?
16 A. I will give you a very brief explanation. It has a body, a mortar
17 shell has a body. It has tail stabilisers. It has a fuse.
18 MR. STAMP: I'm not really objecting to the professor using a
19 document that he produces from his own store of -- or wealth of documents
20 that he might have but could we be given copies of what he proposes to use
21 in his examination-in-chief?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I've got two questions. First, if new pictures
23 are used, can we expect, because we have seen similar pictures of mortar
24 shells before, are you going to tender these documents as well so that we
25 are better able to read the testimony later on? Yes. Okay. Well then
1 you don't have copies at this moment but can you please prepare for the
2 next sequence of the testimony, copies already of these documents.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No, we don't have copies.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, not at this moment but I take it you'll
5 prepare them or ask the witness to --
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, we don't
7 have these documents and we don't have -- we can't have contact with the
8 witness so technically it has to go through the registrar.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If they will be tendered then copies will be
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: It will go through the registry but that dent mean
13 that the registry will make the copies but they might be returned to you.
14 Yes, Mr. Stamp, perhaps that's a very practical issue.
15 MR. STAMP: Perhaps then what we could do then is that - I see
16 drawing or documents - at the next break whatever he uses could be copied.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Vilicic, could you, during the next break,
18 provide those documents you intend to use to explain your report to the
19 registry so that copies can be made and that we have them available to us
20 as well. Please proceed.
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. Witness --
23 A. Your Honour, the only problem is that I have many such documents
24 and I don't know whether you will ask me questions about all this but
25 otherwise there's no problem. During the break I can make sure that
1 copies are made if this is necessary.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If you select those drawings, those documents that
3 you think is most likely that you will use them.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Q. So Professor --
8 A. May I continue?
9 Q. Yes that's what I just wanted to say.
10 A. This is what a Yugoslav 120 millimetre mortar shell P-61, that is
11 a main high explosive mine for 120 millimetre mortar. As I said, it is
12 made of a body, of the stabiliser, of the fuse, and the main charge in the
13 body of the stabiliser and the additional charges that are inside
14 celluloid shells. There are six additional charges. A mortar shell that
15 are manufactured by Yugoslavia have two types of fuses. The old type
16 UT-M62 its main characteristic is that the coil M75 times 64, that means
17 that the coil is 2 millimetre and there is a newer fuse, UTU-M74 and whose
18 coil is M45 also times two which means that it is the coil of two
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have a cry for help from the
21 French booth. They are asking the witness to slow down because it is very
22 technical and the testimony interpretation is getting lost.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will repeat, I will repeat the
25 main thing for the French booth. It's a filetage. That's the coil, that
1 is the thread of the fuse of the UTU-M62, M25 times 4 times 2 for the fuse
2 UTU-M78 the thread of the coil is M45 times 2.
3 On this drawing, what is given are all the relevant threads of the
4 parts of a mortar shell. Here we can see in the upper part a reductor
5 which has a thread which goes into the body of the -- the body of the
6 shell with a thread M56 times 2, the thread is also 2 millimetres.
7 The mortar projectile has to have a larger opening so that when it
8 is manufactured, the explosive can be cast. The reductor is used in the
9 case when the coil of the fuse is of a smaller radius than the opening of
10 the shell. And in the second case, when the fuse UTU-M74 is a contact
11 fuse, a light contact fuse, then there is no reductor.
12 Q. Thank you, Professor. Professor, since you've explained on this
13 drawing the parts of the shell, can you please tell us how is a shell
14 activated, how does it explode?
15 A. The explosion of a shell only occurs after it is fired when, in
16 the course of the firing, the fuse is armed which means that after a
17 certain speeding up, parts of the fuse are moved and they are ready to,
18 upon impact of a shell at a solid obstacle, then the shell becomes
19 detonated and that's when the shell explodes. So in order for a shell to
20 explode, the fuse has to be operational after the shell was fired.
21 Q. Professor, when you were telling us about the parts of a shell,
22 did I understand you correctly that you were just explaining about the
23 fuse while you did not explain yet all the other parts of the shell?
24 A. The only thing I said was what were the main parts of a projectile
25 of a shell. Their function I didn't explain because it is clear that a
1 mortar projectile is stabilised while its trajectory with the help of a
2 stabiliser, which is made of the body of the stabiliser and the tail fins.
3 Inside the stabiliser, we have the main charge, the primary, and
4 additional to that, we have additional charges. In order to fire 120
5 millimetre shell, we have to use the primary plus one additional charge
6 and then, depending on the distance of a chosen target, we then choose how
7 many additional charges we are going to put on this shell.
8 Q. Thank you, Professor. You told us also about how a mortar shell
9 explodes and you told us about a shell becoming activated and the function
10 of the fuse. Can you tell us about the types of fuses that exist
11 in -- that are used for shells? We are talking about 82 millimetre and
12 122 millimetre shell?
13 A. Mortars are used primarily to neutralise troops and firing points.
14 In order to achieve this, two types of fuses are used. There is a contact
15 fuse with immediate operation and also the fuses that are time-delay
16 fuses, except the time-delay fuses have two different functions. We call
17 that or the construction of such a fuse has the so-called tap which is
18 used that before the shell is fired, depending on the target, it is
19 adjusted either to become a contact or a time delay. So that is the coil
20 or the tap on the UTU-M78 fuse.
21 The 82 millimetre mortar shells in most cases are used to destroy
22 troops and that is why they have contact fuses. They can be -- because
23 its greatest efficiency is if a shell explodes on the surface. Mortar
24 projectiles, mortar shells of 120 millimetres are also used to destroy
25 targets that are protected, bunkers, trenches made of wood and soil, they
1 are on time delay and in these cases, that is why we use the fuse which
2 has got a time delay and in that case, the shell will penetrate more
3 deeply into the ground, the depth of penetration will depend on the soil,
4 the resistance of the soil. It has a higher effectiveness in destruction
5 but is less effective in terms of troop destruction so there are fewer
6 fragments that go around the impact site.
7 Q. Professor, before we have a break, I wanted to ask you a question
8 whether it is possible for a shell not to explode at all and if that is
9 possible, can you tell us in which cases?
10 A. Yes, it is possible. A shell may not explode only in a case if
11 the fuse is not operational. If there is a so-called misfunctioning of
12 the fuse because of a technical problem, there is a disruption from the
13 initial detonator and the detonator, the fuse so the shell does not
14 explode, the projectile does not explode. The shell remains either
15 embedded or on the surface of the terrain, depending on the terrain, on
16 the soil, it does not explode.
17 Q. What happens with a shell that doesn't explode?
18 A. In principle, such a shell is very dangerous and it has to be
19 destroyed by placing explosives on it and it then becomes activated and it
20 is destroyed. If the fuse is deactivated which is very risky, then such
21 shell cannot be used again because deformations happen, but what can
22 happen and apparently did happen in war is that the explosive can be taken
23 out, cast out, and it can be used for making other types of shells, the
24 so-called cakes, and then new jackets for shells can be made or other
25 projectiles can be manufactured.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Professor. I believe
2 it is time for a break, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will adjourn until 11.00, and may I invite
4 you, Dr. Vilicic, to provide the documents most likely to be used to the
6 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam usher, will you please escort Dr. Vilicic into
9 the courtroom.
10 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Professor, before the break, you explained to us what happens to a
13 shell that doesn't explode and I think that you explained that it can be
14 used or reused and how it can be reused again. Now, my question is what
15 is the effect of a shell on the target?
16 A. As I have already explained, a mortar projectile is used to
17 destroy troops and also to destroy sheltered facilities and mostly firing
18 points, machine-gun nests and so on. A mortar projectile has -- primarily
19 it's the fragments that are effective.
20 Q. Can you tell us, Professor, what does the efficiency of a shell
21 depend on?
22 A. The effectiveness on the shell on the target will depend on the
23 characteristics of a shell in its construction so it will depend on the
24 quality of the material of the jacket.
25 Q. Professor, you've already explained that in detail in your report.
1 What I wanted to hear from you is just the most general points so that we
2 can follow you.
3 A. The effectiveness of a shell, of a mortar shell will depend on the
4 features, the characteristics of the projectile, and also of the
5 features,, characteristics, that is, the resistance of the target itself.
6 Q. Thank you. Professor, on the picture 2.7 you gave us the main
7 parameters of the probability of target destruction. Can you tell us how
8 many fragments are obtained from a shell explosion? You've already put
9 that in table number 5 but I just wanted to have answer to this question?
10 A. Well, I'll be very brief because it was in -- on page 9 in the
11 report, it's given how many an 82 millimetre calibre shell, that is, 120
12 millimetre calibre shell, what their mass of the explosive is in these,
13 it's already given and also what is the mass of the fragments and that is
14 the 7 --
15 Q. For 82 millimetre, is it 289 fragments?
16 A. The mass of fragments is -- the total mass of fragments is 2.000,
17 that is the mass of the metal jacket, 2.290. But during the explosion,
18 one part of the mass is lost and the mass of fragments which is actually
19 effective on the target is. As it is given 2.019, that is on a mortar
20 shell of 120, that will be from the mass of the shell, the mass of the
21 fragments will be 8.338. In table 4, I just have to say that -- I have to
22 make an observation, what has been given is the velocity of the fragment,
23 the initial velocity of the fragments at the time of the explosion while
24 on table 5, what -- the value that is important is the coefficient of the
25 charge that is the relation or the ratio between steel and explosive.
1 What I said earlier was that a mortar shell of 120 millimetre
2 calibre is more effective, relatively more effective than 122 artillery
3 projectile. This conclusion is drawn on the basis of the fact that a
4 mortar shell has a larger coefficient of charge. Because of this, the
5 metal jacket of the projectile is fragmented into a higher number of
6 fragments compared to an artillery projectile.
7 Q. Thank you. Professor, in your report, on page 17 --
8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Sorry, I have a question because if not,
9 afterwards it's more difficult.
10 That table, table number 5, you have the mass of lost fragments
11 for mortar shells 82, 120 and 122 millimetres. In the first case is 11,8
12 and the second is 0,8, I think that that's wrong. It should be 20.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. That's correct.
14 It's a mistake. This should be 20. And in the third column it should be
15 23 for an artillery shell.
16 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Professor, first of all, on page 9 of the English version, you
19 said the energy of the fragments of 100 joules, can you please tell us
20 what is the energy, what does it represent?
21 A. The energy of 100 joules by centimetres square is adopted,
22 established energy which we know is lethal, is effective, it is lethal
23 energy. It's internationally adopted, it's something that's been
24 established in military technology as such.
25 Q. Thank you. Professor, on page 17 of your report, 17, 18, and 19,
1 you mention the terms resistance of the target --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, if you would just allow me.
3 Dr. Vilicic, you just corrected your table number 5 saying that --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- That mass of lost fragments should be 20 for a 120
6 millimetre shell and that it should be 23 for an artillery shell. Would
7 you explain to me why it would not be 2.3 but 23? So I am talking about
8 the second correction you made.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as you can see, the
10 total mass of material -- metal parts 10.265 and then after --
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... After the second
12 correction you made you were asked about the 0.2 and then you added in the
13 column for the artillery shell, 122 millimetre, 2.3 should be 23. I'm
14 asking you why it should be 23 rather than 2.3? So would you please
15 concentrate on the last correction you made.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you will allow me, the total, the
17 total mass of metal parts, 122 millimetre shells, that is the very last
18 column, it's 18.075.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The recovery is 17.659. The
21 difference is 4.043. When we divide that by 18.075 is 0.22, that is
22 0.223, 0.22 times 100 is 22 per cent.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid you are mixing up the number and the mass,
24 the 4.043 is the number of recovered fragments.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, I apologise, I was looking
2 JUDGE ORIE: What I see is the total mass of metal parts is 18.075
3 grams whereas the total mass of recovered fragments is 17.659 which is in
4 my view correctly you state that the mass of lost fragments is 2.3 per
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, 2.3 per cent.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So your second correction, we forget about that?
8 It's not 23, it's just 2.3.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 2.3, yes, that's a mistake.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Professor, can you explain to us the term of a target resistance
13 and the sensitivity of the fuse, and these two terms, how do you link
14 them, can you explain that?
15 A. For a fuse to be operational and to function, what is necessary is
16 that the target has a certain resistance. If the target has a high level
17 of resistance or high degree of resistance then when the impact occurs,
18 the fuse upon an impact, when it is high resistance of the target then it
19 will be -- what will happen is that the -- a fuse will be activated very
20 quickly, that is, the fuse will become armed and the explosion will occur.
21 If the target is less resistant for instance, a soil or a swamp,
22 agricultural land, then the time that we need for the fuse to become armed
23 and to function, the time will be longer and to penetrate -- it will
24 penetrate more deeply into the terrain and then the explosion will occur
25 later. That is the less resistant terrains will make it so that
1 more -- less resistant terrains will make it so that the fuse will be
2 activated later and the explosion will occur slightly later.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, isn't this perfectly explained in
4 paragraph 2, 4 and especially on page 19 by the difference in resistance
5 of the targets?
6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I'm aware of
9 that but I just wanted to explain certain basic given data of this report
10 so we can follow Mr. Vilicic.
11 Q. Professor, what can you tell us, why fragmentation happens, why
12 the -- why this happens?
13 A. Fragmentation happens for many reasons. First of all because of
14 the changes of the characteristics of the gunpowder fuse and this will
15 depend on the year of the manufacture, of the year of the charge being
16 filled and the outside temperature, then also what will happen is that the
17 mass of the projectile can change from -- deviate from that of the table
18 and also because of the age of the system which is used to fire, the
19 artillery system, the state of repair, and in the end, of course, the
20 weather conditions during the trajectory.
21 Q. Thank you. Professor, can you tell us, what is the method that
22 you used to calculate the value of the fragments, of the fragmentation?
23 A. In all of these cases of our analysis, of our report, according to
24 the documents that we received regarding mortars, mortar shells, to see
25 the fragmentation, that is the deviation from the trajectory, we used the
1 table, the firing tables for 82 and 120 millimetre mortar shells.
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Ms. Pilipovic,
3 your question was translated into English: "Can you tell us what is the
4 method that you used to calculate the value of the fragments, of the
5 fragmentation." It's not clear to me what you mean by the value of the
6 fragments or the value of the fragmentation. Are you talking about the
7 number of fragments or ...
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, here, we are speaking
9 about the fragmentation of the projectile.
10 Q. So what is the method that you calculated to establish the value
11 of the projectile fragmentation, that was my question?
12 JUDGE ORIE: What exactly do you mean by "What calculation did you
13 have in mind?" Because we have on the fragmentation the dispersion of
14 fragments we have the mass of fragments we have a lot of calculation
15 and -- but what is exactly the value of fragments?
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] The dispersion of fragments on the
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Dr. Vilicic, you seem to understand the
19 question, how did you understand to what calculations was referring?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the transcript, it's
21 been mistranslated. The question was translated as fragmentation of
22 projectile. What it is, it's dispersion of fragments, it is dispersion of
23 fragments of -- of fragments of the projectile on the target.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I now understand the question. It's a
25 translation problem. Please proceed.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Q. Professor, can you tell us what is the main characteristics of the
3 82 and 120 millimetre mortar shells of Yugoslav manufacture?
4 A. 82 and 120 millimetre calibre mortar shells of Yugoslav
5 manufacture are not very different from other mortars, 82 and 120
6 millimetre mortars of foreign manufacture but the main characteristic of
7 our mortar shells that we analysed and used to analyse for all of -- in
8 all of these cases is the fact that the mortar projectiles of Yugoslav
9 manufacture had coils with a 2 millimetre thread for the reductor, for the
10 fuse, for the body of the stabiliser which is screwed into the body of the
12 Q. Professor, when you mentioned the stabiliser, can you tell us what
13 is the velocity of the ejection of the stabiliser, that is, at which speed
14 is the stabiliser ejected?
15 A. During the explosion of a mortar shell, the explosive charge has a
16 frontal effect on the stabiliser and the impact wave is trying to stop the
17 stabiliser, to eject it.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, may I ask -- may I return to your
19 earlier question and especially to the answer and I have some difficulties
20 in interpreting the answer, that is, Dr. Vilicic, you said that, "mortar
21 projectiles of Yugoslav manufacture had coils with a 2 millimetre thread
22 for the reductor, for the fuse, for the body of the stabiliser which is
23 screwed into the body of the shell."
24 Were you referring to the reductor for screwing in the fuse or is
25 that the same thread as used by screwing in the tail fin because you are
1 talking about two parts of the shell and you are talking about the
2 reductor. Is the reductor used both for the tail fin and for the fuse?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. The reductor is used only
4 at the top of the shell, for the fuse. It is intended to stop the opening
5 of the mine and -- yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that. And then you in that same
7 answer also referred to the stabiliser.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Did you intend to say that for screwing in the
10 stabiliser, the same thread was used but not with the reductor?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. No, there is no need to
12 use a reductor. It is screwed in directly into the body of the mine.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was unclear to me and now it's clear to
14 me. Thank you.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Into the body of the shell, interpreter's
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation].
18 Q. Professor, I'm not sure you've answered my previous question
19 regarding the velocity with which the stabiliser is rejected or
21 A. Yes, I was about to answer your question. It is a relative
22 velocity with which during an explosion, the stabiliser is able to return
23 to the opposite -- into the opposite direction, opposite as opposed to the
24 firing direction depending, of course, on the velocity, impact velocity of
25 the projectile.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Can you tell us, please, what that velocity would be after the
2 explosion, the stabiliser rejection velocity and why would it be important
3 to establish that velocity at all?
4 A. In our analysis, we provided a detailed explanation as to how the
5 stabiliser is jettisoned. I'm just going to repeat here the order of
6 magnitude of these velocities. The velocity with which the stabiliser is
7 rejected is anywhere - of course depending on the quality of the charge
8 and the weight of the stabiliser - between 140 and 170 metres per second.
9 As far as our 120 millimetre shell is concerned, we used, in our analysis,
10 the velocity, the rejection velocity of 154 metres per second which
11 velocity was obtained on the basis of the calculation which is exposed in
12 our report.
13 It is possible for the stabiliser to remain in place if the impact
14 velocity of the shell is between 140 and 170 metres per second, but it can
15 also be jettisoned if the impact velocity of the shell is lower than this
17 Q. Thank you. Professor, I would like you to tell the Chamber and
18 explain to all of us what traces are left on soil after the explosion of
19 the shell, what are they called and what do they depend on?
20 A. In our terminology, the place of impact of a shell is called a
21 crater. During the explosion of a mortar projectile, metal parts of the
22 jacket are dispersed and in accordance with very detailed examination that
23 we conducted when we obtained these projectiles, under an angle of the
24 equatorial line of 57 degrees, it is on that angle that metal parts of a
25 jacket are dispersed.
1 Q. Professor, I'm not sure you have answered my question as to the
2 parameters of the depth of the crater, what does it depend on?
3 A. It depends on the resistance of the soil, the impact velocity and
4 the time necessary for the fuse to be activated.
5 Q. Can you tell us what is the significance of establishing the depth
6 of a crater?
7 A. The depth of a crater is very significant for the purposes of
8 establishing the following. First of all, the type of projectile that was
9 used, that is, it will depend -- on the basis of the width and depth of
10 the crater, one can establish the type of the projectile which was used
11 and in the five cases that we analysed, mortar projectiles were examined,
12 therefore, the craters of an 82 calibre projectile were smaller, of
13 course, than the crater caused by the 120 millimetre calibre provided that
14 both projectiles fell on the same type of soil.
15 Q. Sorry to interrupt you, Professor, you told us that the depth of a
16 crater left by an 82 calibre projectile is smaller than the one left by a
17 120 millimetre calibre. Can you tell us what these two depths are, that
18 is, the depths of the crater left by these two projectiles?
19 A. As I have already said, the depth of the crater depends on the
20 impact velocity of the projectile and the resistance of the soil. In
21 order to establish the exact depth of a crater one needs to know what type
22 of a projectile was used, the angle under which the projectile hit the
23 soil, and the drop velocity of the projectile.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, this is all explained clearly in table
25 7, isn't it?
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, but I wanted
2 to --
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... That the Chamber
4 has really read the reports with full attention and therefore if you ask a
5 question about --
6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I trust you have, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... What the crater
8 depth would be then of course the expert could do nothing else than
9 referring to the variables that are establishing the crater depth as set
10 out IN table 7 and he has now to repeat that it depends on the drop angle,
11 on the drop velocity, on the type of soil on which it lands and that's all
12 in table 7, so that really is clear to the Chamber.
13 Please proceed.
14 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Professor, after the explosion of the shell, is it possible for
16 the stabiliser to become embedded in the soil?
17 A. Yes. As I have already indicated, under certain circumstances, it
18 is possible for the stabiliser to become embedded in the soil. This would
19 happen whenever the drop velocity of a projectile is higher than the
20 velocity with which the stabiliser was rejected, that is, higher than the
21 velocity that I indicated, the one that is higher than 140 to 170 metres
22 per second.
23 Q. Professor, I believe you have already clarified the velocity with
24 which the stabiliser is embedded in the soil depends on but I would be
25 grateful if you could repeat that for us?
1 A. I believe I already said that. It depends on the drop velocity
2 and the soil resistance and of course on the velocity of the stabiliser,
3 which continues to move in that case in the direction of the projectile.
4 Q. Thank you. Professor, as far as these two calibres are concerned,
5 82 and 120, what would be the penetrating velocity of the stabiliser on
6 tarmac, on asphalt soil?
7 A. In our analysis in table -- we indicated the penetration velocity
8 of a projectile.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, may I just ask you to -- it's not quite clear to
10 me what you understand by penetrating velocity. Velocity, is as far as I
11 understand, speed, a projectile or a tail fin with a certain speed could
12 penetrate or not and penetrate to a smaller or to a higher degree into a
13 certain soil.
14 Before the expert answers the question, could you, Ms. Pilipovic,
15 explain to us quite clearly what you understand by the term penetration
16 velocity, velocity, yes.
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't ask about
18 the penetration velocity but the depth.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have a -- then we have a problem of
20 translation and that might happen sometimes in this very technical matter
21 because most of our interpreters are not educated in a technical
22 university, neither was I, so let's try to get things clear. You are
23 asking about depth.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] The depth of penetration of an 82
25 calibre and 120 calibre projectile stabiliser on a macadam asphalt cover.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, doesn't the report of this expert already
2 clearly explain that the penetration depth would certainly depend on the
3 drop velocity and the back power so could this be a question that could be
4 answered in general terms or should we specify?
5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
6 Q. Specifically, as regards the question concerning a macadam asphalt
7 cover, that type of soil. I'm trying to be as clear as possible and I
8 believe that my question was specific enough.
9 A. May I respond?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, please.
12 A. In the analysis in table 7 and table 8, we provided the depth of
13 penetration. As far as the stabiliser penetration depth in macadam soil
14 or macadam asphalt covered soil, I must emphasise the possibility of some
15 very old asphalt to be more resistant than a concrete surface; therefore,
16 the depth of penetration, as I have already indicated, will depend on the
17 drop velocity of the stabiliser, on the velocity of the stabiliser itself,
18 and the angle under which it penetrates.
19 By way of illustration, I can perhaps tell you that in case of 120
20 calibre projectile stabiliser, when the impact angle is 55.6, which is the
21 maximum impact angle for this type of charge, 600, depending once again on
22 the drop velocity, the highest value would be up to 10 centimetres.
23 MR. STAMP: Once again it appears to me that the Professor is
24 referring to documents that he has perhaps they could be put on the ELMO
25 so I could see what he's referring to.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you are consulting any documents,
2 Dr. Vilicic, and I can imagine that you didn't learn all figures by heart,
3 but the parties and the Chamber would like to know what type of document
4 you are consulting and before doing so, would you just allow me to reread
5 your last answer.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction page 43, line 23, not
7 600, but the sixth charge.
8 JUDGE ORIE: If you just give me 30 seconds to read and to try to
9 better understand the last answer.
10 May I ask you one question in respect of your last answer. You
11 said that the maximum drop angle would be 55.6, that is what I also find
12 in your table number 2 for 0 plus 6 charges the drop angle 55.6. Would
13 that be valid also if the level of firing in the terrain would be
14 different from the level of impact, for example, you can fire from sea
15 level and the impact could be 300 metres above sea level or you could fire
16 from 500 metres above sea level and the impact could be at 200 metres
17 above sea level. Would your values in table 2 be valid also for these
18 situation and I'm especially referring to the figures under 2.6, A, B and
19 C which seem to describe trajectory where the level of firing is the same
20 as the level of impact.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the difference, as far as the
22 drop velocity's concerned, when the firing position of the weapon is above
23 the height of the target in cases of between 250 metres is very small.
24 The results will have to take into account the gravity for that height.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Would that, apart from influence the drop velocity,
1 also influence the angle, the drop angle slightly or significantly but...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It changes only slightly the angle.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If Your Honours will allow me, I
5 would like to show you the graph of the trajectory of 120 millimetre shell
6 when the angle is not zero but is below the level of the weapon.
7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Professor, the sketch that you placed on the ELMO, can you explain
9 what you wanted to explain?
10 A. Your Honour, Mr. President asked me about the difference in the
11 angle of descent for the -- depending on the altitude of the weapons up to
12 500 metres. This is a zero altitude. If the target is at 500 metres
13 below, then we can see from here that these are the trajectories for the
14 top group of the angles, the highest angle of descent and we can see that
15 the differences in the angle of descent are very slight.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I see. So you say it has slight impact of the angle
17 of descent and it has some impact on the basis of the gravity on the speed
18 of impact. Yes, please proceed.
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 Q. Professor, I think that in answering the question that I asked
21 you, you used the table which you've just put on the ELMO. Can you please
22 finish answering that question? This is the table which is currently on
23 the ELMO?
24 A. Yes, but the numerical part of that table is given in here. If
25 you mean the firing table, do you mean the -- or the depth of penetration.
1 Q. The depth of penetration, that is the question that we didn't get
2 an answer to, I believe, the full answer.
3 A. May I continue?
4 Q. Please do, Professor.
5 A. You asked about the depth of penetration for a stabiliser in the
6 soil which is a macadam covered by layer of asphalt, and my answer was
7 that the asphalt is relatively soft as a principle, however old asphalt
8 can be very hard and it can actually behave as it was a concrete surface.
9 In the table that we can see on the ELMO, the depth of penetration is
10 given for macadam soil, macadam surface, how much it can be depending on
11 the drop velocity. This is the column that I'm just pointing to now,
12 where you can see that for the depth of penetration or 20 centimetres, the
13 velocity of the stabiliser should be 127 metres. And here, we are
14 speaking about the sixth charge which is the maximum angle of descent for
15 the sixth charge.
16 The maximum impact velocity, drop velocity, impact velocity is 235
17 metres. If we take that off from the stabiliser 140, then we will only
18 have left 90 metres per second which is the speed of the velocity of the
19 stabiliser. From this table you can see that practically the stabiliser
20 cannot penetrate 20 centimetres, it cannot even penetrate 15 centimetres
21 into such a surface. It penetrates to a much lesser degree.
22 If there was a layer of old asphalt, then the depth of penetration
23 would be even less.
24 JUDGE ORIE: May I, Ms. Pilipovic, may I ask you two things.
25 First, you are talking about macadam and here it says beat stone, is that
1 the same, I'm not a construction person, is that the same material?
2 You're referring to -- I see beat stone, I do not see the word macadam.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] We can ask the professor.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm asking, yes.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our terminology, that is it, that
6 is it. We call it macadam which is gravel stone which has been beaten.
7 The expert, he mentioned that in English, they call that tarmac.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, might be. I'm just -- I have to check. And the
9 second question would be when you are talking about the penetration depth,
10 you -- the assumption is, I take it, that the material penetrated is for
11 the full length of penetration consisting of that material. For example
12 if you are talking about 20 centimetres you would --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... That the full 20
15 centimetres would be tarmac or beat stone.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that's correct, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Q. Professor, while you were answering that question, you used the
20 table on which we can see that it's Berezansky's formula. Can you perhaps
21 elaborate on this formula? What does this represent, this formula?
22 A. Berezansky formula is an old formula. It was used from the
23 beginning of the 20th century, that's when it started as well as the
24 French method, the General Gabeaud method. Very well. During my
25 training, my education France, my professor was General Sutterlin who
1 exposed his method in his textbook and he lectured us on it and this
2 method is based on the examination methods that were used in France in the
3 second half of the 20th century so it belongs to a more modern
4 contemporary method.
5 Q. Professor --
6 A. Let me just explain.
7 Q. Please do.
8 A. Why are we still using this Berezansky's formula? I could have
9 used Sutterlin's formula but in one table that I had already handed over
10 to the Chamber to be copied, we gave calculations, we made calculations
11 according to the Berezansky's, Gabeaud, Sutterlin, and Young methods and
12 the latest American laboratories method and these comparative results for
13 macadam and concrete from which it can be seen that the Berezansky is the
14 least favorable in terms of depth of penetration, that is, the Berezin
15 formula and the coefficient give the deepest depth of penetration much
16 more so than the others.
17 The contemporary methods, Sutterlin and the SNL [phoen]
18 laboratory, they give much lower depth of penetration compared to the old
19 ones. According -- compared to Berezansky and Gabeaud. We wanted to use
20 the method which was the most rigorous in terms of the depth of
21 penetration in order to get the most trustworthy result.
22 Q. Thank you. Professor, on this table, can you tell us about
23 asphalt and soil, where could we find them or are they together?
24 A. On this table, the last column is ground soil. As you know, the
25 ground or soil of course has got some stones, some rubble. In the table,
1 you have data for different materials, different surfaces, first of all
2 concrete, then for --
3 Q. You don't have to read, Professor, I'm just asking about asphalt
4 and soil, which column is it?
5 A. As I already said, asphalt, as such, from a military point of view
6 of protection was not interesting from a military point of view, so that's
7 why it doesn't appear in these methods. These are developed methods that
8 are used when military shelters are made to protect from conventional
9 weapons and in such shelters, asphalt is not used at all but concrete,
10 wood, stone, et cetera.
11 Q. Thank you, Professor. I'm going to ask you one other general
12 question. Is it possible at all to establish the position of a mortar
13 from which a shell was fired if we know the impact of the shell, the
14 impact site, and its explosion?
15 A. According to the analysis of the impact site of a shell, it's very
16 hard to determine the level of the firing. It's slightly easier to assess
17 the range from which the firing could have come from but it's very
18 difficult to determine the location of the firing. In order to determine
19 the location of the firing, we practically have to know what's the mortar,
20 what's the projectile, we have to have the firing table of that mortar and
21 on the basis of that, we can then establish the place of firing. However,
22 the analysis of the drop of the projectile can be a starting point in the
23 analysis in order to draw certain conclusions.
24 Q. Thank you. Professor, in order to establish the position of the
25 mortar from which a projectile, a shell is fired, and whose impact is
1 analysed, is it necessary to establish the angle of descent?
2 A. Yes, the angle of descent is very important. Slight deviations,
3 that is the differences in angle of descent changing from one charge to
4 the next are not so important when we're not speaking of very long ranges
5 but in very long ranges we have more deviations, more important
6 deviations, that's why it's important that the angle of descent is the
7 second element which is needed following the drop velocity in order
8 that -- to conduct a more serious analysis of assessing the trajectory of
9 the projectile.
10 Q. Thank you. Professor, now I'd like to ask you a series of
11 questions in relation to incident number 1 of the 1st of June, 1993. You
12 said that in your report, that you used as the main document the analysis
13 of shelling on Dobrinja IIIB as you have marked it in your analysis and
14 this is the criminal and forensic report that was done on the 21st of
15 November, 1995, with the photographs, if I have understood you correctly?
16 A. Yes. May I answer? The analysis of all the incidents of the
17 so-called shelling we conducted on the basis of the documents, initial
18 documents given to us by the Defence and these were minutes or the records
19 of on-site investigations from the public security stations from Sarajevo
20 then forensic and technical reports compiled by technical and forensic
21 staff. These were the main elements. For further analysis and to check
22 our conclusions, we used, that is, we looked at witness statements that we
23 were given by the Defence, that we were issued on signature and then
24 returned, for each specific indent which was relevant.
25 For the first case, rather for incident number one, for the
1 shelling on Dobrinja IIIB site, we used as initial elements the results of
2 the record of the forensic technician.
3 Q. Yes, that's precisely what I have asked you about so that we don't
4 have repetition. What I wanted you to answer was how many exact data do
5 you need for the analysis that you carried out and how much did you get
6 such data from this record of 21st of November, 1995?
7 A. I have to say, and state the following which we did state in the
8 report is that the age of the report that was done, two and a half years
9 following the incident. Mostly what we saw was done based on statements
10 of witnesses except for the record of the on-site investigation, it could
11 not be relevant. Bearing in mind of period of time that had passed, it is
12 natural that people would forget things and certain details would elude a
13 person so we used this report mainly by using the photograph.
14 Q. Professor, could you please place the photograph on the ELMO?
15 A. This is photograph number 00358840.
16 Q. Professor, could you please put the photograph on the ELMO.
17 MR. STAMP: Far be it from me to try to dictate how the Defence
18 should use the time allocated, however, I believe that the expert should
19 testify only about matters in evidence. I see they are proceeding now to
20 have their expert proffer opinions on matters which are not in evidence,
21 which are not part of the case.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, as we have clearly indicated that the
23 factual basis on which an expert testifies should be in evidence and I
24 think we referred the, the Chamber referred to some witness statements to
25 be excluded as a basis for an expert report where that statement was not
1 admitted into evidence. Whenever you ask the expert to rely on, I would
2 say, on factual matters, so we are not talking about tables which are
3 really within the field of expertise but if you rely on factual matters,
4 would you please indicate whether they are in evidence and it's not -- but
5 I could be wrong, there have been so many documents but this document does
6 not immediately ring a bell to me.
7 This is a matter for the lawyers to deal with, Professor Vilicic,
8 I take it that you've been provided with this photo but the question to
9 the Defence counsel is whether it is -- yeah, I take it that it's on a
10 CD-ROM but the matter is whether it's admitted into evidence where it
11 comes from, what the document exactly is.
12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am looking at the
13 list of exhibits that have been admitted. I'm trying to see the number.
14 As far as I know, the photograph is part of the report on criminal and
15 technical expertise or analysis which was taken into account by experts so
16 as far as I understand, the photograph is an annex to this report on
17 technical analysis.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your permission,
19 let me try to explain. With the documentation that we received, there was
20 a photograph. This photograph is actually a scanned photograph which was
21 part of the Prosecution material. There is a separate notebook containing
22 photographs. All these photographs were actually taken or scanned from
23 this notebook which we received together with the rest of the material for
24 the purpose of analysing these cases. I have everything on this disc.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand but we have to compare this
1 document which is a scanned document, as far as I now understand to see
2 whether it corresponds with a document admitted into evidence, if it would
3 be a good scan of it.
4 MR. STAMP: Maybe I could just assist here. The witness is
5 correct, and I will be quick, is correct that the document and the
6 photograph were part of documents disclosed by the Prosecution.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. STAMP: The witness has commented in his report and even today
9 that that reference to a report of an examination that was done two years
10 after the incident and having the responsibility to produce credible
11 evidence, we did not use it. It is not in evidence. It is not for the
12 Court's consideration. We used contemporaneous investigation.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that if the expert used this
14 material, it should be perfectly clear, first of all, where it comes from
15 but also whether it is part of the evidence presented by the parties.
16 Ms. Pilipovic, perhaps you'd use the next break to find out
17 whether it is in evidence and where it exactly stems from and that we now
18 proceed perhaps with another subject or -- I am aware that it's -- could
19 be the same subject but not on the basis of this photograph for the time
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we can.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I can explain to Dr. Vilicic.
23 Dr. Vilicic, material provided to you might still be unknown to
24 this Chamber because even if the parties have certain material but have
25 not presented it yet, it is not yet part of these proceedings and that was
1 the issue we were discussing. It has got nothing to do with your
2 expertise, it's legal matters:
3 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Professor, you told us that you had used the report on the 21st of
6 November, 1995 -- dated 21st of November, 1995. On the basis of your
7 assessment and your evaluation that you carried out with the use of your
8 initial values, can we accept the conclusions from this report? Was it
9 possible for you to accept their conclusions, the conclusions of the
10 report that I just mentioned?
11 A. I must explain, though I have already said, our methodology and
12 our approach that we used in our analysis was as follows: We first
13 analysed the impact point, that is the depth at the impact point which was
14 analysed by ballisticians of the security centre in this report. Where
15 numerical values were given it was established that the depth of the
16 crater was 3 centimetres that the radius was 15 and that the dimensions of
17 the elliptical traces left on the surface where the projectile exploded,
18 that is the dimensions were given I don't want to repeat all of the
19 figures so it is on the basis of all that that we calculated the possible
20 drop angle of the projectile. We have also exposed the methodology that
21 we used in our report.
22 Q. There's no need for you to go into that I will ask you a few
23 questions thereon.
24 Your calculations for this particular case, do they allow for the
25 possibility of the consequence which is described in terms of the number
1 of casualties both fatalities and the wounded?
2 A. I must say that the efficiency of the projectile in this case, two
3 projectiles, in respect of which it was not reliably established that they
4 were fired from 82 millimetre calibre mortars; however, on the basis of
5 the depth of the impact point and the shape of the traces left on the
6 surface, it is believed that the projectiles were of that of an 82
7 millimetre calibre.
8 The drop angle is between 63 and 70 degrees, that would have been
9 the drop angle according to our calculations, so in respect of that case,
10 and we also knew the distance between various persons who happened to be
11 on the surface, so on the basis of our calculations, we established that
12 the total number of persons that were hit in case of two projectiles can
13 be a maximum of 43.
14 I have to say that in our analysis, we based ourselves on the
15 assumption that on the -- at the time that the shell hit the target, all
16 persons were standing at the match so after the first explosion, in order
17 to protect themselves, they probably fell down and remained in prostrate
18 position so in respect of a 60 degree drop angle the final conclusion
19 was --
20 MR. STAMP: The witness is now proceeding to state facts which are
21 not in evidence and that is all persons were standing and then to
22 speculate about matters which are not in evidence.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but Mr. Stamp, the Chamber has, not without
24 reason, said that expert witnesses should clearly define the facts on
25 which they based or the assumed facts. We cannot expect this expert
1 witness to know exactly what happened but he can say assuming this
2 happened, the conclusion would be X, assuming that another thing happened,
3 the conclusion would be Y.
4 So even for assumed facts. And what the witness, as a matter of
5 fact, explains to us at this moment is that of what basis, on what assumed
6 factual basis he gave his opinion and of course we still have to hear some
7 of the evidence on facts so we have not even a complete set but there is
8 no reason not to allow an expert witness to clearly defines what is the
9 factual basis to give his opinion.
10 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation].
12 Q. Professor, did you finish your answer?
13 A. Yes, I said that based on the assumption that I just described,
14 the maximum of persons hit would be 43 and then in accordance with some
15 statistical indicators which are usually adopted when evaluating the
16 efficiency and which are given on the photograph that I have mentioned,
17 the number of persons hit can be divided in three groups, fatalities,
18 seriously wounded, and likely wounded. So the total number, according to
19 this, would be 43.
20 Q. You mean the total number of persons hit would be 43?
21 A. Yes, including all types of injuries from fatal to light injuries.
22 Q. According to this, can we establish that 82 millimetre shells were
24 A. I stated that it cannot be established with full certainty that 81
25 or 82 millimetre shells were used; however, in view of all the parameters
1 and the type of soil on the location where the incident occurred, that
2 would be our conclusion.
3 Q. In view of that, what would have been the distance of the firing
5 A. We used two elements to establish that, the first one was the
6 penetration depth or the crater depth which was 3 metres deep, 3
7 centimetres deep on the basis of that, we assessed or rather concluded on
8 the basis of our calculations that the velocity of the primary charge, and
9 that is the velocity with which such a crater would be caused by this type
10 of projectile. The second basis for our conclusion was the drop angle,
11 the 63 -- between 63 and 70 degree drop angle and on the basis of all that
12 we concluded that this projectile, in view of this drop angle and this
13 velocity, the range between the target and the firing position would have
14 been somewhere between 300 and 400 metres.
15 In the security centre, they mention the distance, the possible
16 distance of up to 1.000 metres.
17 Q. Professor, you had the opportunity of listening to Mr. Higgs and
18 his analysis you also took into consideration his calculations. Can we
19 say the results of Mr. Higgs and the information from the official note
20 that you used, the report can be compared and used?
21 A. Unfortunately, I have to say that our results do not tally with
22 the results of Mr. Higgs. First of all, Mr. Higgs does agree with us with
23 respect to some numerical figures. He concluded just as we did that the
24 drop angle was very high; however, his conclusion that the firing distance
25 was between 500 and 600 metres is closer to our results but it is in
1 contradiction with the results of the security centre.
2 When analysing Mr. Higgs' testimony, we concluded that the -- he
3 did not dispose of an adequate firing table. In his testimony, we
4 couldn't find any relevant proof for the velocity of the projectile, the
5 velocity with which the projectile fell and I -- unfortunately, I have to
6 conclude that the results given Mr. Higgs are not accurate, that is, the
7 distance was between 138 and 143, unlike the conclusion of the security
8 centre who stated that it was fired from the direction of 110.
9 When analysing the possible reasons for such huge difference, we
10 concluded that the map, the official map that we were given and that was
11 used by Mr. Higgs --
12 Q. Professor, would you be so kind to put the map on the ELMO,
14 A. This official map does not correspond to the network as we call it
15 of maps normally used by us and which was officially used in this case.
16 To be more specific, on this map, the equatorial and meridian lines do not
17 form a square but a rectangle. It is true that Mr. Higgs could read the
18 values between 138 and 143. On our map, this can by no means be that
19 angle because by way of illustration, here, the direction goes via Gornje
20 Mladice. If you take into account our official map which we used in our
21 analysis, the scale 1:25.000 or 1:30.000, you will see that the angle in
22 question, the one at the location of Gornja Mladice --
23 Q. Professor, if you have this map, and I know that it was part of
24 your analysis, I think that it can be found on page 27, I believe, picture
25 3.1A, the mortar positions of Serb forces?
1 A. Well, one can see the angle between Mladice or rather the location
2 number one on this map is not between 138 and 143 degrees but
3 significantly higher. And now we are talking about the axis Donje Mladice
4 and the impact point on this field. That angle would be between 162 and
5 173 degrees. This can be easily established with adequate equipment.
6 Q. Professor, in your opinion, are calculations of Mr. Higgs correct
7 and accurate?
8 A. No, they are not because according to what we can see here on the
9 map, the shelling incident number 1A, the angles do not correspond and in
10 reality, it is actually totally different compared to the direction from
11 which the shell came.
12 Q. Thank you. Professor, what is the target probability of a shell
13 with primary charge?
14 A. The probability of hitting the target is given in table number 9.
15 It is the highest with primary charge, it amounts to 34 per cent compared
16 to other charges, the first or the second charge or even some higher
17 charges. In order to hit the target from 300 or 400 metres, to hit the
18 field, for the probability to be 95 per cent, one needs to fire three to
19 four, rather four shells; however, if you target with the sixth or the
20 seventh charge, you would need over 100 shells. The probability is higher
21 with the distance -- with longer distances.
22 Q. You have also analysed case number two, Dobrinja V, the incident
23 which occurred on the 12th of --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, perhaps before we move to the next
25 incident, perhaps we should have a break first. We'll adjourn until five
1 minutes to 1.00.
2 --- Break taken at 12:37 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12:59 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam usher, would you please escort the witness into
5 the courtroom.
6 Ms. Pilipovic, do we have clarified the issue of the photograph,
7 where it comes from and --
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President, the time
9 was so brief that we've had no time to chat, we just know that it's a
10 document that was handed over by the Prosecution but nothing more than
11 that. It seems that according to what Mr. Stamp told me that this
12 document was not formally handed over as an exhibit so we had no time to
13 check. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp, let me first ask the -- Dr. Vilicic,
15 you were about to show us a photograph of which you have a scanned copy.
16 Did you refer to this photograph somewhere in your report? It's not quite
17 clear to me, as a matter of fact.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Where is that?
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I think that's page 49 of your
21 report in B/C/S.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see, my --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We mentioned that in the -- while we
24 were doing the report, we used the documents of the public security centre
25 that we also used the expert reports that were of the crime department,
1 ballistic reports, and we also used the photographs which were given to us
2 or, rather, that were photographed by the public security centre in
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm also drawing your attention, Mr. Stamp, and your
5 attention, Dr. Vilicic, of the English version of the report page 29,
6 footnote 17. Is that where we find the report?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Yes, and footnote 17,
9 JUDGE ORIE: I see that this seems to be a series of three
10 photographs. I take it that you only have the scanned version with you
11 and not the original or ...
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't have the originals but
13 it's a series of photographs that were marked two out of three. They are
14 on page 28 and the photograph 3.3, it's 838, last numbers and 840 where we
15 have the sketch of the parking and the photograph number one, it's
16 00358838 and photograph number 2, it's 88358840.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm sorry, it's 839 and 840 is
19 the photograph which I have prepared to show you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see. When you are referring to this
21 photograph, I do not know exactly who made the markings on it and what
22 they actually mean. That's my main problem. I take it, Mr. Stamp, please
23 correct me if I am wrong, I take it that if this photograph has been
24 disclosed to the Defence as a photograph taken on November 21st of 1995
25 that this is not in dispute.
1 MR. STAMP: That is not in dispute.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No. In order to understand this photograph fully, of
3 course I would like to know but without seeing the report I do not know
4 exactly what the markings mean.
5 MR. STAMP: And they are not all markings on the photograph as
6 disclosed. However, I --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Does that mean that markings are added on this
8 photograph compared to the photograph disclosed by the Prosecution.
9 MR. STAMP: Indeed, however I reiterate if I may, Mr. President,
10 these photographs are not in evidence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes but of course the Chamber could consider whether
12 to call the parties but I now do understand Ms. Pilipovic that Mr. Stamp
13 tells us that part of the markings were not on the photograph were not
14 disclosed, is that true? But could we perhaps during the next -- well,
15 the next break will be a bit longer but to find out exactly what we are
16 looking at if we are looking at this photograph.
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Because if the expert thinks the photo could further
19 clarify his opinion, the Chamber might be interested in seeing this
20 photograph but at the same time if you say that it's a photograph
21 disclosed by the Prosecution and now the Prosecution tells us that things
22 have been added of course the Chamber would like to fully understand what
23 it sees so therefore I invite the parties to clarify this issue so what is
24 new, what is old and what the markings old or new do represent, I mean
25 what is intended by the person who made these markings and then we might
1 decide that we would like to see that.
2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, but I think, Your Honour,
3 that nothing's been added to this photograph as far as I can see, but I
4 can -- I will check.
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Contradicting
6 each other and the Chamber has no idea on whether that would be true or
7 not true so I think that Dr. Vilicic, it will not be your last day in this
8 Court so therefore, the parties might resolve the matter and then perhaps
9 tomorrow we know more.
10 Then please proceed.
11 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm sorry, Professor, did you add something to
12 the photographs?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I wanted to explain what I
14 added there so that you can see. You probably have a black and white
15 copy. May I show it on the ELMO so that you can see what's been added?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you would explain what has been added.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What's been added in colour is this
18 red line, the green line, and these two arrows that are red. That's been
19 added. So the red line, two arrows, and this number here, approximately
20 20 degrees.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and the white paper was on it already.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, that was there. That was
23 there, the white paper was there or rather this white paper is the map of
24 Sarajevo, this here, while this -- while the green line, the green line
25 and the N with a question mark corresponds to the north on the map because
1 the map goes north to south. As it is placed here the north should be up
2 there. If the map has been placed correctly, as it is normally placed
3 according to a compass, then in all other cases, you will see all maps are
4 placed according to the north on the compass.
5 The map is moved so that the north of the map corresponds to the
6 compass north. Here, perhaps it's a mistake, but it doesn't -- it's not
7 according to the regulations how one should place the map and place it
8 according to the north.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps that might be one of the reasons why it has
10 not been used yet, I do not know, but could we just have -- because I
11 can't even see on that black and white copy that this is a map. Could I
12 see the photograph perhaps the copy so that we get more ...
13 At this very moment, things are too unclear to -- yes, but the
14 Chamber would very much like the parties to meet and see -- I mean if the
15 pattern is of -- we would have to read the report in more detail on this
16 issue and see if the map could help us in better understanding the opinion
17 of the expert. But for the time being, we could not work on this basis.
18 Perhaps we could do that tomorrow, Ms. Pilipovic.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you.
21 Q. Professor, I think that before the break, I asked you in relation
22 to incident number 2 on Dobrinja V, 12th of July incident in your report,
23 you gave us a detailed -- in details your position and what you used in
24 terms of documents. I'm interested to know whether the documents, the
25 facts, the data in the documents, can that be considered as being
2 A. The fact that in the documents, it is stated that the explosion
3 happened in the air at a height, not on the surface, and bearing in mind
4 the damage that is obvious, that is the deformation on the wire fence that
5 is visible on the fence, it is acceptable to say that the explosion
6 occurred above ground. In the report, it was stated that the explosion
7 happened because the projectile hit a human body at about one metre off
8 the soil and it's on the basis of that and by analysing the traces on the
9 surface and also on the basis of the number of persons who were hit and
10 wounded, we concluded that this was a projectile that exploded and fell
11 under a very large angle, and as I said, the effectiveness of the
12 projectile is the -- as the greater, the larger is the angle of descent.
13 Q. Can you tell us what did your calculations say in terms of the
14 direction of where the shell came from?
15 A. As I've already said, the direction where the shell came from,
16 particularly when it's a very large angle of descent, it's very difficult
17 to establish. The fact is that according to our calculation on the number
18 of people wounded, the angle of descent is between 80 and 85 degrees. The
19 projectile could have come from various distances but it was very
20 difficult to establish the direction.
21 Q. Thank you. Professor, specifically in this case, according to
22 you, what was the probability of an 82 mortar shell hitting this?
23 A. Here, we were in a situation of imagining two scenarios. From the
24 documents that we have, that is, the initial, the primary document that we
25 had, it was stated that there were 30 people queueing for water. Later
1 on, reading the witness statements, we saw that this number was somewhere
2 between 100 and 150. Specifically, Witness Enver Taslaman, I think his
3 name is that, he said in his first statement, there were 120 and later on,
4 when I read the testimony, his testimony from his appearance in court, he
5 said there were between 100 and 150 people.
6 So we then -- we did an analysis of a situation where there were
7 100 people and 150 square metres bearing in mind that one person occupies
8 a surface of one square metre that one all of the persons were turned
9 towards the centre of explosion and that most of their body surface was
10 exposed to the explosion in the direction of the explosion and we came to
11 a conclusion that the number of a wounded persons for the scenario that we
12 mentioned and for the results that we have calculated would be up to 29
13 people, 29 persons. In table 9 we gave the results the number of wounded
14 people under the assumption that the projectile exploded at one metre
15 above ground as it was stated.
16 Q. Yes, Professor, there's no need for the table.
17 A. Table number 11 gives more detail.
18 Q. Can you please tell us what is the probability of hitting such a
19 target with one shell without looking at tables?
20 A. The probability of hitting a water queue with one shell is very
21 small, is about 13.7 per cent and it's on the basis of that we concluded
22 that the water queue was not a target that was pre-selected. If it had
23 been pre-selected then certainly several projectiles would have been used.
24 One projectile, bearing in mind the destruction, the effectiveness, and if
25 you like, if it was known ahead of time how people stand in a queue for
1 water, it would be a completely irrelevant target for someone who would
2 want to fire such a target just using one projectile.
3 Q. Professor, in your conclusion, you said that there was no proof
4 that it was an 82 millimetre shell. So is it possible to state with
5 certainty that it was an 82 millimetre calibre shell?
6 A. Well, as I said, it's an assumption although it was said that the
7 stabiliser of an 82 millimetre shell was found, the stabiliser was not
8 part of the documents of the evidence that was handed over for analysis,
9 there's no photographs and subsequently, in one document, while I was
10 looking -- going through the documents, I saw that there was a very -- not
11 very visible photograph that it was a stabiliser that belonged to a
12 Russian shell. I have this ...
13 Q. Professor, we can do that later, we can find that document later.
14 A. If you want me to give you a number then I'll have to look at it.
15 Q. We can leave it for tomorrow, that question.
16 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask one question to you, Dr. Vilicic. You
17 mentioned 13.7 per cent and I think you also indicated that as a starting
18 point for your calculation, you took 150 square metres for the target. Is
19 that correct?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I said was that we looked at
21 two cases when we have one surface of 100 square metres and that is when
22 we have 100 people present and a second case when we have people at 250
23 square metres which is the second part of the table. In the first case,
24 if we have 100 persons at a surface of 100 square metres of such a
25 rectangular surface is 13.7 per cent. If we have a more extended --
1 JUDGE ORIE: May I just stop you? That's what I understand. The
2 transcript says, and I read it literally to you, "From the documents that
3 we have, that is, the initial, the primary document we had it was stated
4 that there were 30 people queueing for water. Later on, reading the
5 witness statements we saw that this number was somewhere between 100 and
6 150." And then later on in the next paragraph, you said "So we then, he
7 did an analysis of a situation where there were 100 people and 150 square
8 metres." So that is a mistake, I take it, because table 10A talks --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Talks about 100 people on 100 square metres so that
11 was a mistake, I take it.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's a mistake.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one moment,
16 MR. STAMP: May I just inquire of the Court as to where I could
17 find the part of table 10A where it says --
18 JUDGE ORIE: That's page 37 you will see that on the -- I would
19 say the second row where the text is ongoing, it says, "Dimension of
20 target, 20 times 5 metre which is 100 square metre," and not 150 square
21 metre. That was what I was trying to have clarified, yes?
22 Please proceed.
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Q. I believe you just said, let us just resolve one small
25 misunderstanding, you said were 30 persons queueing up according to one
2 A. Yes, according to one version, according to the statement of
3 Taslaman, the --.
4 Q. Originally he said there were 120 people and then later on during
5 his testimony, he said there were 30. I believe that's what you said?
6 A. No.
7 JUDGE ORIE: The expert has explained on what basis he made his
8 calculations and whether 30 or 100 or 250 people would be the correct
9 number. That's not within the field of expertise of the witness. Please
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Q. Professor, you were now answering my questions in relation to
13 incident of the water queue. We spoke about the probability of hitting
14 that target with an 82 millimetre calibre shell, what I'm interested in
15 now is if we speak about incident number 4, no, number 3, 22nd of January,
16 1994, here, you told us that you carried out this analysis on the basis of
17 the official report of the security services centre and the forensic
18 technical investigation of the site and the report thereof and that you
19 also did that according to the traces of -- traces on the asphalt and
20 the ...
21 A. Here I have to say that, as I said before, that always when we are
22 doing the analysis, the starting point was always the depth of the crater.
23 It is on the basis of the depth of the crater given in the report, we
24 concluded that the depth did not correspond to an 82 millimetre calibre
25 shell, moreover, because since it was a large angle of descent, then the
1 drop velocity would be higher than 60 or 70 metres per second and on the
2 basis of the traces, it is assumed that the angle of descent was about 85
3 degrees. This means that if the velocity was higher than 70 -- drop
4 velocity higher than 70 metres per second then it was a higher charge than
5 a primary charge and this could have been, it could be the charge plus one
6 as we call it, and we've established this for the depth of the crater and
7 the appearance of crater on the ground. That's what we concluded.
8 This corresponds to an explosion of an 82 millimetre shell. The
9 depth of the crater in that case corresponds to the drop velocity for a
10 first charge at an 85 degree angle of descent and according to the firing
11 tables for an 82 millimetre calibre shell, for such an angle, the range
12 would be about 250 metres which means that this mortar was fired, mortar
13 shell was fired from about 250 metres from that place.
14 Q. Thank you. You spoke about an 82 millimetre shell?
15 A. Yes, here there were two shells, two 82 millimetre shells and one
17 Q. Did you assess the direction, did you establish the direction of
18 that 120 millimetre shell, were you able to do that?
19 A. This shell fell behind the facility on a green surface and it
20 created a crater on the basis of which we concluded that it was a 120
21 millimetre shell on the basis of the depth of the crater and it had
22 maximum drop velocity which means that it was fired with a higher charge
23 but the angle of descent was also relatively large, it belonged to the
24 higher category of angles of descent and bearing that in mind, and the
25 position of the stabiliser on the soil as it was.
1 Q. Thank you. Professor, while working on this analysis, and I'm
2 referring specifically to this incident, you said you had the official
3 report of the security services centre and also the report on the on-site
4 investigation and the ballistics report, did you have an opportunity to
5 familiarise yourself with some other document providing the analysis of
6 the same incident?
7 A. We had report number 221320-IAN-94 in which it is stated that the
8 distance -- I mean the report makes mention of meteorological conditions
9 prevailing at that time.
10 Q. Can you tell us who drafted this particular report?
11 A. This is an UNPROFOR report drafted by Captain Verdi on the 23rd of
12 January, 1994 in which report he stated, among other things, the number of
13 persons killed, he also provided the potential angles of descent, maximum
14 ranges and so on and so forth.
15 Q. The assessment of that report, would it in any way affect the
16 conclusions that you stated in your report?
17 A. I'm talking only about the part relating to the parameters that we
18 took into account and all I can say is that we were not able to glean any
19 new element from this particular report which would have effect in any way
20 our conclusions.
21 Q. Professor, just a few questions concerning the incident number 4.
22 With respect to this particular incident, can you confirm the shells that
23 were used?
24 A. As far as we are concerned, our group of experts, this tragic
25 incident from the technical point of view was the source of a lot of
1 valuable information. It confirmed our conclusions on the effectiveness
2 of 120 millimetre shell. In this particular incident, stabilisers were
3 found on the place of impact, stabilisers of 120 millimetre shell. We
4 were also provided with photographs for this incident. I hope we won't
5 have any technical problems now. I'm talking about a set of photographs
6 that were provided to us.
7 I will show you three photographs. On this photograph, you can
8 see the stamp of the Sarajevo Security Services Centre which made this
9 photograph. This photograph shows the stabiliser and this one depicts the
10 appearance of the crater left by the shell that hit this soft surface.
11 The markings here are the original markings of the Security Services
12 Centre you can see the number of the photograph here and on this
13 photograph, one can clearly see the stabiliser of 120 millimetre shell
14 that hit the concrete zebra, it was embedded in the surface of the soil
15 and on this photograph, you can see that the Security Services Centre did
16 a good job when placing this map unlike the other photograph that we
17 discussed with respect of the first case, they placed it accurately.
18 Further analysis of this case, as I have already indicated,
19 revealed the angle of descent. We were also able to assess the drop
20 velocity and on the basis of all that, we were able to make a rough
21 assessment of the range of fire whereas the direction of fire,
22 unfortunately, could not be precisely established as is the case with
23 other projectiles.
24 When talking about concrete surfaces and the depth of penetration
25 which is accurately indicated here, in the report made by the Security
1 Services Centre to the effect that one crater was 9 centimetres deep and
2 the other one 7, together with the information that was provided and in
3 view of the appearance of the crater, that is what we were able to see on
4 the photograph, it was possible for us to carry out our analysis.
5 Q. Professor, when you say that it was possible for you to carry out
6 your analysis on the basis of all these parameters and values, what can
7 you tell us about these parameters such as the penetration depth, the
8 stabiliser penetration depth? How can they be used for assessing the
9 range from which the shell was fired?
10 A. On the basis of the stabiliser penetration depth, and on this
11 photograph 268255, we were able to establish for a 45 degree angle and
12 consulting firing tables what were the starting velocities for individual
13 charges and from what range it could have been fired.
14 Q. Professor --
15 A. If you will allow me to finish, please. A shell fired from an
16 angle of 45 degrees could have been fired, on the basis of our
17 conclusions, from the east or south-east, but not from the distance of
18 1.800 metres but a significantly smaller distance.
19 Q. Professor, tell us, please, what is your final conclusion as to
20 the possibility of establishing the firing positions of these shells? Can
21 we conclude with certainty that they were fired from Serb positions?
22 A. Well, the fact that two projectiles, one of which hit the zebra
23 under a roughly 45 degree angle and the other one which I indicated on the
24 previous photograph which fell under almost a 90 degree angle and became
25 embedded in the soil, clearly indicates that it is not possible from one
1 firing position and from one weapon for these two results to be -- to
2 obtain these two results. So on the basis of that, we cannot firmly
3 conclude that they were fired from the Serb positions.
4 Unfortunately and practically speaking, in this case, as was the
5 case with other incidents, we were not able to establish the accurate
6 direction of fire. And if I may add, based on this, and also on the fact
7 that the results differ greatly, our conclusion would be that this
8 targeting was carried out for the purpose of correction of fire. It looks
9 like an abortion in terms of targeting because the desired target was not
10 hit so we're talking about a correction of target and not about a target
11 that was supposed to be hit with one or two shells because in targeting
12 theory, there is a rule that says when you're not sure in your assessment
13 of the distance, then one first has to shell -- to fire a shell under one
14 angle and then a second one under a different angle and then on the basis
15 of the consequences, one has to establish what the most appropriate angle
16 for firing would be. And that is why we were able to conclude that this
17 targeting was done for the purpose of checking or verifying the targets so
18 it was either too short or otherwise missed the target.
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I think, Your Honour, that we have
20 exhausted all that we wanted for today and my colleague will continue
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Yes, but I would
23 like to ask one additional question to Dr. Vilicic, if possible.
24 You said you were able, and we are referring to this last incident
25 to assess the drop velocity, on the basis exactly of what did you assess
1 that drop velocity? And do I find that in your report, the assessment of
2 the drop velocity?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the report of the Security
4 Services Centre on page --
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On page 46. Data were given in the
7 report of the Security Services Centre on the dimensions of the crater.
8 It is stated that the depth of the crater for concrete surface, I mean
9 with adequate calculations, you can establish the velocity of the shell
10 that caused a 7 or 9 centimetre crater respectively and it was on the
11 basis of that that --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first stop you. My question was whether I
13 find in your report the assessment of the drop velocity. You are now
14 explaining on what basis you have calculated it but my question just was
15 whether I find it in the report. You then said page 46 and I would still
16 have difficulty finding it.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you are using the other version but --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm using the English version, at
20 the very top of page 46 [In English] "Muzzle velocity is 176 metres, time
21 of flight et cetera."
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I still do not find the drop velocity
23 mentioned in your report; is that correct? You perhaps give all the data
24 that would allow you to calculate this.
25 THE WITNESS: Sorry for -- [interpretation] Drop velocities for VO
1 130 to 322 are given in the firing table which can be found on page 5, on
2 page 5 you will find 20, 130 VC, 133, the charge 0 plus one, initial
3 velocity 130 and the drop velocity 133 metres.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that you assess that but it does not
5 appear in your report. That was my question.
6 One additional question, you said you could calculate that also on
7 the basis of the depth as measured by -- in those reports, the crater
8 depth. You testified, and you -- I think you just said again that this
9 was based on the projectile landing on concrete; is that correct?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that is correct.
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Quote in your
12 report several sources that say that it was asphalt and not concrete on
13 which the projectile landed; is that -- I'm just trying to -- I'm just
14 verifying on whether I understand your ...
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The projectile that hit the asphalt
16 surface, but I'm talking about the pedestrian crossing which is covered
17 with asphalt, concrete and then asphalt.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, it was not clear to me on what basis you
19 calculated this drop velocity, perhaps we might come back to that
21 May I instruct you, Dr. Vilicic, not to speak with anyone, not
22 with Judges, not with Defence, not with the Prosecution on your testimony
23 and we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning same courtroom, 9.00.
24 And if there would be any documents you would like to -- if there
25 would be any documents you would like to use tomorrow that are in need to
1 be copied, could you please give them to the registry?
2 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, very briefly, if I may, I
4 have problems of -- are there problems ever interpretation. Thank you,
5 for the French booth, page 19, line 24 and 25, there is a problem of
6 meaning. Page 22, line 2 and 10, several passages are missing, problem of
7 meaning. Page 46, there's a passage added. Page 48, can it be please
8 changed, less favorable, very important. And then page 75, do I see and
9 not I see. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the translation should be as correct as possible
11 and certainly those passages will be checked and adjusted if needed.
12 We'll then adjourn until tomorrow morning 9.00, same courtroom.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
14 at 1.53 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday
15 the 26th day of February, 2003, at
16 9.00 a.m.