Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20168

 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

Page 20169

 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

20    you.

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

Page 20170

 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

Page 20171

 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

Page 20172

 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

Page 20173

 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

21    them.

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

Page 20174

 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

 7    point.

 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

Page 20175

 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

Page 20176

 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

 7    Prosecution.

 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

Page 20177

 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

 9    Chamber.

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.

Page 20178

 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

 5    that.

 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

Page 20179

 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

Page 20180

 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

Page 20181

 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

 8    appreciated.

 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

Page 20182

 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

Page 20183

 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.

Page 20184

 1    Yes.

 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

Page 20185

 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

 6    2001.

 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

Page 20186

 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

16    device?

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

Page 20187

 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

Page 20188

 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

Page 20189

 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

Page 20190

 1    expert.

 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

18    mortar?

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

Page 20191

 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

Page 20192

 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

10    made.

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

Page 20193

 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

19    millimetres.

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

Page 20194

 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

Page 20195

 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

Page 20196

 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.

Page 20197

 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

 5    registry.

 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.

Page 20198

 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.

Page 20199

 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,

Page 20200

 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

Page 20201

 1    at...

 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

 5    cent.

 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

Page 20202

 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

Page 20203

 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

17    target.

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.

Page 20204

 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

11    shell.

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

Page 20205

 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

16    correction.

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

20    jettisoned?

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.

Page 20206












12   Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13   English transcripts.













Page 20207

 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

16    value.

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.

Page 20208

 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?

Page 20209

 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?

Page 20210

 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.

Page 20211

 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.

Page 20212

 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,

Page 20213

 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.

Page 20214

 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

Page 20215

 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

Page 20216

 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,

Page 20217

 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

Page 20218

 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

Page 20219

 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

Page 20220

 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

Page 20221

 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

20    being.

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

Page 20222

 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

Page 20223

 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

Page 20224

 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

23    used?

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

Page 20225

 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

 4    position?

 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

Page 20226

 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,

13    please?

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?

Page 20227

 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

Page 20228

 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,

Page 20229

 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

 3    Sarajevo.

 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,

 8    yes.

 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.

Page 20230

 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

Page 20231

 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

Page 20232

 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

Page 20233

 1    truthful?

 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

Page 20234

 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

Page 20235

 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 --

Page 20236

 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,

15    please.

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

Page 20237

 1    version?

 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

10    proceed.

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

Page 20238

 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

16    120.

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.

Page 20239

 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

Page 20240

 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

Page 20241

 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

Page 20242

 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

21    tomorrow.

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

Page 20243

 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

Page 20244

 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

20    tomorrow.

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

Page 20245

 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.