Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20427

1 Friday, 28 February 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus

7 Stanislav Galic.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

9 I'm informed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that you would like to address

10 the Chamber. I already can tell you that if it's urgent we'll listen to

11 it now. On the other hand, we'd like, if possible, to finish with

12 Dr. Vilicic, so if it's a matter that could wait for a second then

13 please ...

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is urgent but it will be

15 brief. First thing, copies of tapes, we would just like to have it on the

16 record that we perhaps were not able to ask certain questions of expert

17 Vilicic. I say perhaps because it's not sure because practically when the

18 copies were -- when the copies were made, and this is not a reproach, the

19 time that elapsed, we were not able to do what we wanted to do during the

20 examination-in-chief. That is when we were asking our questions, that is

21 the first point.

22 The second point, Mr. President, and this is very important, when

23 I say it's urgent we think that it should be dealt with straight away to

24 do with the decision that was passed yesterday by the presiding judge of

25 Trial Chamber I, unless I'm miss taken in relation to the issue that we

Page 20428

1 asked him.

2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I take it, just

3 an order to have matters clear. Please, yes.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Now, the case is the

5 withdrawal -- this was to do with the lacuna in the law directly

6 communicated to the Appeals Chamber and today we find ourselves in a

7 specific situation, the following: The withdrawal was requested, the

8 cases before the Appeals Chamber and in this type of situations there is a

9 quasi-legal lacuna received by the judge who passed the decision in

10 question.

11 Now, this is to do with a domestic jurisdiction that when such a

12 situation is presented, that is, when there is a withdrawal, that is, when

13 it is to the level of the appeals authority or the text itself, what

14 happens is that --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel slow down, please.

16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... The Defence

17 would like to request that the proceedings will be stayed as long as the

18 Appeals Chamber is dealing with the matter of the accusation.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's exactly it.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Especially since you refer to many legal systems,

21 this is an important legal matter, I would say, which is very much to be

22 dealt with in written form. So if there are any submissions to be made, I

23 mean today or these three hours will not considerably change --

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.


Page 20429

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, but the reason why I'm

2 intervening now is following the observation of the Judge and his order so

3 that the Defence is not reproached with a belated request to do with the

4 suspension. Now, we are intervening immediately just to in limine litis

5 on this point and if you tell us that we can formulate that in writing at

6 a later date we will do that but from this very moment we have formulated

7 it. The -- our position is suspension of all procedure and if we continue

8 to question this witness and others, this is -- we're taking this with a

9 reserve so that our position is clear.

10 JUDGE ORIE: It's perfectly clear that you object against the

11 continuation of the proceedings at this very moment. When I said it's

12 something for written submissions, especially because you referred to

13 systems of law and that of course is not something that could be explained

14 easily just by orally informing us but precise sources would be needed to

15 better study your argument. When you say the later date, of course the

16 matter is such that the Defence should do that as soon as possible and not

17 just leave it too long so that we have your argument, written argument,

18 available, as soon as possible.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, is there any other issue to be raised?

21 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President, I have some issues to raise but I

22 heard you say earlier that you preferred to complete the evidence of this

23 witness unless it's urgent. The matters that I have are not so urgent so

24 perhaps I could make my points at a later time during the day if that's

25 convenient.

Page 20430

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if that would be possible if there is a later

2 time today available for us because we have to leave this courtroom at

3 exactly quarter to 2.00.

4 I have a few decisions and observations. The Defence has asked

5 for more time for the examination of the expert witness Radinovic, the

6 Chamber initially granted three hours then the Chamber granted four hours;

7 both four hours for the Defence and four hours for the Prosecution. The

8 Chamber will consider, depending on how the parties proceed in the

9 examination and cross-examination to add one hour to those four hours for

10 both parties and it will depend on the efficiency the parties demonstrate

11 during examination of the expert witness.

12 There has been another issue which needs some attention and that

13 is whether there would be any breaks and how to deal with rebuttal

14 evidence if there is any request for rebuttal evidence. Of the

15 Prosecution should indicate as soon as possible from now on whether they

16 want to present rebuttal evidence. They should specify what rebuttal

17 evidence they would use unless, upon good cause shown, the Chamber would

18 decide that for a specific part of the rebuttal evidence you have in mind

19 that you would not have to provide further details as to what statements,

20 what witnesses, et cetera, but in general, we are at such a stage of the

21 proceedings that the Prosecution is in a position to disclose to the

22 Defence what it intends to seek - this is not a decision of the Chamber

23 that it will be admitted - so that the Defence can start preparing for the

24 cross-examination of rebuttal witnesses and again if there's any specific

25 reason or a specific subject why it would unfair -- why it would be unfair

Page 20431

1 to the Prosecution to present this data, the Prosecution can apply for an

2 exception.

3 The final list of the final request of rebuttal evidence, because

4 there might come up new things, you never know, should be filed

5 immediately after the close of the Defence case, on that same day

6 immediately. The Chamber then will take presumably four days to hear the

7 other party on that request and give a decision. It can be expected that

8 the Chamber will give an indication of rebuttal evidence that will be

9 admissible right after the hearing of the other party even if it's not a

10 complete decision yet on the request as a whole, but if there are elements

11 on which we can decide immediately, we'll do that so that the Prosecution

12 is in the position to further prepare for calling that evidence. That

13 would also mean that we'll start with the presentation of rebuttal

14 evidence if any is required not certainly -- certainly not later than five

15 working days after the close of the Defence case. So we'll have a break

16 of presumably four, perhaps five days.

17 The same procedure will apply as far as evidence in rejoinder is

18 concerned, that means that after the close of the rebuttal evidence, the

19 Defence should immediately file whether they want to present any further

20 evidence. We'll then also take four to a maximum five days to hear the

21 Prosecution on that request. We'll also give a decision as soon as

22 possible so that the Defence can prepare for travel arrangement for

23 witnesses, if necessary.

24 The parties should be aware that the rebuttal evidence and

25 evidence in rejoinder is presumed not to take much time and certainly not

Page 20432












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20433

1 more than five days. You should stay well within these limits, of course

2 as far as the Chamber can oversee now because we are giving a decision not

3 knowing exactly what the parties will request but this is just as guidance

4 to the parties.

5 If that is -- yes, Mr. Ierace.

6 MR. IERACE: Thank you for that, Mr. President. I should indicate

7 that the issues that I will be raising a.m. Some stage during the date are

8 likely to take in the order of 20 minutes and in my respectful submission,

9 it would be appropriate for the Trial Chamber to hear these matters today

10 rather than Monday because some of them concern the witness Radinovic and

11 incidentally, Mr. President, I think you said Radovanovic, I expect you

12 meant Radinovic.

13 JUDGE ORIE: That was the military expert.

14 MR. IERACE: Yes. We've received further correspondence from the

15 Defence this morning which concerns us greatly about his evidence.


17 MR. IERACE: So I would be grateful if, Mr. President, it would be

18 possible to indicate a time that I could return and raise these matters.

19 JUDGE ORIE: It depends. During the first break, I'll try to get

20 more information on whether there would be a possibility to deal with that

21 matter perhaps later during the day because we really would like to finish

22 with Professor Vilicic. That does not mean that if we would not meet in

23 this courtroom before a quarter to 2.00 that the matter could not be

24 discussed in whatever way by the parties, it's a practical matter.

25 MR. IERACE: One of the matters, Mr. President, should be on the

Page 20434

1 record, and it doesn't concern Mr. Radinovic.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It might be that we find another courtroom. I

3 still have to investigate how to deal with it and that's -- may I also

4 make clear that the parties should really work as efficiently as possible

5 with the expert witness Vilicic and I already can announce that the

6 Chamber has quite some questions for Professor Vilicic.

7 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Just to

9 allow everyone to save time, the Defence and I'm speaking here about

10 Ms. Pilipovic, is offering to Mr. Ierace to have a meeting if there are

11 any problems to do with this witness. It could be this weekend, it could

12 be Sunday to shed some light on these problems, so we can resolve

13 everything, thank you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever can be resolved between the parties is to be

15 preferred and let's -- the Chamber is still optimistic about the potential

16 of the parties to resolve their own problems.

17 Madam usher, could you please escort Professor Vilicic into the

18 courtroom.

19 [The witness entered court].

20 JUDGE ORIE: Since you understand English, Professor Vilicic, I

21 don't have to say dobradan, but just good morning may I remind you that

22 you are still bound by the solemn declaration that you gave at the

23 beginning of your testimony.

24 Mr. Stamp, please proceed.

25 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

Page 20435

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just so we have

2 an idea how much time does the Prosecution have left.

3 JUDGE ORIE: It's just -- Madam Registrar is computing it.

4 MR. STAMP: Before my time begins to run, Mr. President, may I

5 just ask how much there is.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Madam Registrar is just -- total time used until

7 now is three hours and three quarters of an hour that would leave another

8 one hour and 45 minutes.

9 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.


11 [The witness answered through interpreter]

12 Cross-examined by Mr. Stamp: [Continued]

13 Q. I would like to return to the Markale incident. At page 53 of

14 your report, you determined the drop angle from the record on measurements

15 of the traces, the mechanical damage to the ground and you used the

16 formula that was published by Dr. Vukasinovic to measure the angle of

17 descent or all of you used it. In that paragraph, you used the figures 26

18 centimetres and 56 centimetres. Were those numbers taken from the report

19 of the crime analysts who examined the crater?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Dr. Vukasinovic's theory or formula proceeds on the basis that if

22 the angle of descent of a falling shell forms an angle of less than 90

23 degrees to the horizontal surface of the ground, the peripheral

24 star-shaped and elliptical traces of the damage to the ground around the

25 crater are more distinct and longer on the side of the crater than the

Page 20436

1 shell came from and he applied mathematical procedures to that premise.

2 A. No, no, no. Again, I don't think that you understood.

3 Vukasinovic here is looking at the trace of the front part of the

4 projectile, that is, of the frontal ogival part. During the explosion it

5 forms two circles, one circle which is around the fuse and the other which

6 is going from the frontal part of the projectile. What is probably

7 confusing for you that there is no the back trace which is logically,

8 depending on the direction where the projectile came from the fragments of

9 the other part of the projectile, from the central part towards the

10 stabiliser, those fragments create that trace in the -- going in the

11 direction of where the projectile come from. This has probably caused

12 confusion for you because this frontal part AO is longer than OB. I think

13 you can see that the drawing is made in such a way that you can see it on

14 the sketch that the projectile came from the direction where the trace is

15 lesser but that has nothing to do with the other part of the trace which

16 appears when the projectile hits the ground.

17 I can show you this in a better way when you see the picture at

18 the very beginning of the report.

19 Q. Is whether or not if the shell impacts at an angle of less than 90

20 degrees on a horizontal surface of the ground, the traces would be longer

21 and more pronounced in the direction from which a shell came, and I think

22 you've answered the question. That's all I wanted to ask you.

23 Indeed, Doctor, although you have used the mathematical formula in

24 the Markale case, any expert artillery officer can look at a crater and

25 from the mechanical damages, from the splash marks of the fragments on the

Page 20437

1 ground, I'm on to a different question, the question is this: That any

2 artillery expert could look at the splash marks on the ground and come to

3 an assessment of angle of descent on the basis of the dimensions of the

4 splash mark. And as a matter of fact, you have done so in respect to

5 incident one. At incident one at page 31 --

6 A. Yes, yes, every artillery expert can give a rough assessment of

7 the direction just like us. We were also not able to assess precisely the

8 direction of fire. We have just done so approximately, and if it's

9 necessary, I can explain why.

10 Q. We'll get to explanations in due course. So Doctor, the -- are

11 you aware of the evidence of Professor Zecevic that when he measured the

12 crater, he found that the drop angle was just about 60, it was between 55

13 and 65 so that is basically in agreement with the results of your

14 mathematical methodology? You have to answer verbally, you just nodded.

15 A. Yes, yes.

16 Q. Are you aware that there were two other UNPROFOR personnel from a

17 specially-organised team of experts who measured the angle of descent?

18 A. I'm aware of the fact that a number of UNPROFOR members assessed

19 the drop angle in the direction in the UNPROFOR report that I have with me

20 here, you can see that they checked this on three occasions. After the

21 on-site investigation that was carried out by the SJB, the public security

22 centre and then the following on-site investigation carried out by Zecevic

23 and at that time the crater had already been changed. I listened to the

24 testimony of Zecevic here. I heard how he determined the drop angle.

25 Q. Just answer the questions. I understand that you disagree with

Page 20438












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20439

1 the methodology but you have agreed with me that the results of Zecevic's

2 methodology basically corresponds with yours. What I'd like to ask you

3 now if you are aware that the UNPROFOR members of that special team that

4 measured the angle of descent found it to be in a range of 950 to 1.100

5 mils, which corresponds to 53 to 61 degrees. Are you aware of that?

6 A. Yes, I know that John Hamill Brendan -- I know that eight

7 measurements were taken from those various data.

8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Efforts to measure the angle

9 of descent correspond and they were independent of each other.

10 A. [In English] I am looking to see what you asked me.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please pause before asking a

12 question.

13 MR. STAMP: I apologise.

14 THE WITNESS: Because they didn't translate to me what you asked

15 me.


17 Q. Okay, we can agree -- I'm just finding some points of agreement

18 quickly. We can agree that the measurements of the angle of descent,

19 yours, Zecevic's and the UNPROFOR experts correspond between 53 to 65

20 degrees.

21 A. [Interpretation] I must say that in the report, that we have here,

22 we stated that the best examination was carried out by the team led by

23 Professor Zecevic. It was the most complete report.

24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... All part of the analyses,

25 yours, Zecevic's UNPROFOR, all the angles correspond. Generally speaking

Page 20440

1 would you agree with that?

2 A. I agree with Zecevic's but not with UNPROFOR's because they are

3 very different. And it's true that UNPROFOR determined itself on the

4 basis of those measurements because the crater was so damaged that they

5 were not in a position they weren't able to do it precisely and some of

6 them didn't do it at all. Out of the eight, on three occasions, I think I

7 can even remember this, I think it was on the 11th of August, the --

8 sorry, the 11th, 15th or 16th of February 1994 I have it in the report.

9 Q. The last question on this point. I suggest to you that the two

10 members of the UNPROFOR team who measured it had the same results as

11 yourself and Zecevic.

12 What document is that, please?

13 A. This is the UNPROFOR report on explosion at the market in Markale

14 dated 5 February 1994.

15 Q. So you consulted to answer my question. I am simply trying to get

16 the points of agreement you will agree that all persons who measured the

17 crater, you using your scientific methodology that was published by

18 Dr. Vukasinovic, Zecevic, by placing the fin back in the hole although you

19 don't agree with that methodology, and the UNPROFOR members came to the

20 same conclusion. That is all I want you to answer in respect to angle of

21 descent.

22 A. I'm sorry. I can't confirm that like that because if you have a

23 look at the results reached by UNPROFOR. UNPROFOR didn't determine the

24 same angles. I had to have a look at it because they are given in mils,

25 not in degrees; it's between 950 to 1.400. Share that with 16.7 and you

Page 20441

1 will obtain the angle, divide that by 16.7. I didn't do that, I didn't

2 divide it because UNPROFOR claims here that these results are not exact,

3 are not reliable and -- I apologise. Because the measurements were made

4 on a crater which was significantly damaged in relation to the initial

5 state of the crater.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, you have reviewed all the findings

7 just mentioned by Mr. Stamp, I take it. Is any of these findings in

8 contradiction with the drop angle you calculated?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Yes. Captain

10 Verdy on the 5th of February, Verdy his measurement was greater than 83

11 degrees, Russell took a measurement and it was more than -- just a minute,

12 Russell measured 71 for the low one up to 1.300, 71 to 77 degrees, Hamill

13 made measurements and it was 950 shared with 16 -- divided by 16.7, Hamill

14 was close to that result.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Is that last one contradicting? 950.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. No. That one

17 corresponds to the figure, that's why I said that only Mr. Hamill,

18 Hamill's results corresponded to Zecevic's results and to --

19 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just asking. So Captain Verdy is the one who is

20 in contradiction with your calculation, and the other one was Russell?

21 THE WITNESS: [interpretation] Major Russell.

22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Other

23 contradiction in the --

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With regard to the angle, you mean?

25 MR. STAMP: Yes, angle of descent.

Page 20442

1 Q. There is no other contradiction, is there?

2 A. No, there isn't. That's why I said not all of them, that some and

3 I emphasized the fact that Hamill's results were correct.

4 Q. And may I just indicate to you for future reference, I asked you

5 about the members of the UNPROFOR team of experts. Captain Verdi and

6 Major Russell were not members of that team although their results were

7 recorded here. The two members of the team were Major Hannes [phoen] And

8 Commander Hamill who did results.

9 So what I want to ask you now, doctor, is it agreed also that a

10 120 millimetre shell will only lodge in the ground if it is fired on

11 charge 3 and above; is that agreed?

12 A. Even with the first charge, it will lodge in the ground if it's

13 been translated correctly. No, no, that's not correct. Each charge

14 results in the projectile lodging in the ground but if the charge is

15 greater, it penetrates to a greater depth and if the charge is smaller, it

16 penetrates to a lesser depth.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have to

18 object here because either we're talking about Markale and then it

19 involves the Markale surface or it's a general question and then we have

20 soft surfaces, hard surfaces et cetera so the question is not sufficiently

21 precise, thank you.

22 JUDGE ORIE: The way in which the question was put is whether it

23 could lodge at all on whatever surface if it would land -- if it would

24 have been fired at a certain charge.

25 MR. STAMP: The thing is in the report, so I can move on.

Page 20443

1 JUDGE ORIE: But Mr. Stamp, I ask you, you were talking about a

2 projectile lodging in the ground, did you refer to the tail fin or to the

3 projectile because that caused the confusion.

4 MR. STAMP: Yes, if the transcript has it correctly I thought I

5 referred to the tail stabiliser fin, but maybe I could just rephrase the

6 question and it's in the report at page 53, we --

7 Q. Professor, at 0 plus 3 or greater charges -- withdrawn.

8 If a 120 millimetre mortar is fired and has a drop angle of 53 to

9 65 degrees and it is fired from charges 0 plus 3 or greater, what would be

10 the range, according to your knowledge of the range tables?

11 A. It depends on the initial angle for the drop angle if that's what

12 interests you if it's between 55 and 65 degrees since I assume that that's

13 what you are referring to. For that drop angle, the range should then be

14 greater than 5.700 from ten metres, if it has five charges. If it has

15 three charges, then it would be from 3.900 metres and with six charges,

16 6.500 metres, 6.444 according to the fire tables because these are drop

17 angles from a minimum of 55 degrees.

18 Q. So Doctor --

19 A. Those would be the maximum ranges.

20 Q. Doctor, within that angle of descent, or for that angle of descent

21 at charges 3 and higher, what would be the minimum distance?

22 A. Two to 3.700, if the drop angle was 85 degrees with three

23 charges. You asked me what the minimum ranges are.

24 Q. The drop angle is not 85 degrees. I'm asking for a drop angle

25 between 55 and 65 degrees. For charge 3, what is the minimum distance?

Page 20444












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20445

1 A. The three charges, it could be about 4.000 metres. With five

2 charges about 5.000 metres and with six charges, 6.400 metres these are

3 the maximum ranges. The minimum ranges -- please allow me. I don't have

4 a complete firing table here I only have a graphic firing table here.

5 With three charges, the drop angle could be small. If we

6 increased the number of charges, the drop angle has to be greater because

7 the velocity is greater. You asked me whether it was for four, five, or

8 six charges.

9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Time on this question. I'm

10 asking you now at angle -- drop angle of 55 to 65 degrees, what is the

11 minimum range for the 120 millimetre mortar fired at charge 3, 0 plus 3?

12 A. It's difficult for me to be precise but if the drop angle remains

13 constant, you have to increase the initial elevation. The same drop angle

14 with one charge if you have the same drop angle in one charge, you can't

15 fire from different ranges. One drop angle and one charge corresponds to

16 one range. Another drop angle and another charge corresponds to a

17 different kind of range but if you have an angle of 55, even if you use

18 six charges, two or three charges, you can't obtain this; do you

19 understand?

20 The rule for the trajectories, curvature of trajectories is still

21 applicable.

22 Q. Professor?

23 A. [In English] Yes.

24 Q. For the last time, 120 millimetre on charge 3 angle of descent 55

25 to 65 degrees, what's the minimum range, in your estimation? If you can't

Page 20446

1 give me that precisely, give me an estimated figure?

2 A. [Interpretation] I need a minute or two to obtain this angle from

3 the graphic table.

4 Your Honour, can I show you this on the ELMO? This is the

5 table -- these are the tables for the 120 millimetre shell.

6 JUDGE ORIE: If that assists you in giving an answer to the

7 question, please put it on the ELMO so that we can see it and answer the

8 question.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the third charge, this is

10 the line for the third charge. The drop angle for the third charge is

11 here for the maximum range. To answer your question, I have to increase

12 this angle so that it's an angle of 55 or 65 degrees and then by turning

13 this around, I'll tell you what the exact range is. Very roughly, I can

14 tell you but it's a matter of improvisation, the angle has to be 55

15 degrees. The rule for rotating the trajectory, if you put the compass

16 here, turn this line, rotate the line, I get a range of about 3.000 metres

17 according to these graphic tables.


19 Q. Very well, doctor, thank you.

20 A. I mean I should have a full firing table, the complete firing

21 tables in order to answer this question, the complete firing tables for

22 120 millimetre mortar shells.

23 Q. Now, Doctor, you are aware that a shell impacting in Markale

24 market from a direction of 18 to 23 degrees -- I beg your pardon from a

25 direction of 18 degrees and travelling a distance a minimum of 3.000

Page 20447

1 metres would have been fired from deep within Serbian-controlled

2 territory; would you agree with that?

3 A. No. Because in the report, it states everything, there's the

4 assumption that the projectile came from that direction so that it's

5 impossible to determine.

6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Just some premises, some

7 assumptions, assume they are true, just some assumptions and apply your

8 expertise to your opinion. The simple question: In the north-east, 18

9 degrees to the north, at a distance of 3.000 metres from Markale market

10 and beyond, you are within Serb-controlled territory; do you agree?

11 A. Yes, but according to the statement, the demarcation line is about

12 2.500 metres in that direction, I think. One of the officers in that --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp has limited time so you answered the

14 question by the first yes, and if Mr. Stamp would need further

15 explanation, he'll certainly ask for it. Yes.

16 Please proceed.


18 Q. As I suggest for the record that the confrontation line in that

19 direction was approximately --

20 A. Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Professor Vilicic.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, I said 2.200, I

23 didn't say 3.000 metres. I said 2.200 metres.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever, that's where the confrontation lines are is

25 not specifically something an expert in ballistics would know as a fact.

Page 20448


2 Q. So Doctor, for the time being, just please focus on my questions.

3 Please. What you have done in your report, Doctor, --

4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm sorry, Mr. Stamp, I would like to ask

5 something. When you say that you said 2.200 metres and not 3.000 metres,

6 you are referring to the range or to the distance of the confrontation

7 line?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the documents that are here, this

9 is the distance that I saw, the demarcation line, according to an UNPROFOR

10 officer was 2.200 metres in that direction. That's what I was referring

11 to.

12 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.


14 Q. So, Doctor, I suggest to you that it is having regard to these

15 obvious and agreed upon truths that we just went through that the mortar

16 shell must have come from deep within Serb territory, that you have raised

17 this issue of penetration depth by using a Sandia study to suggest that

18 the incident did not occur as alleged. Do you agree or disagree, it's a

19 yes or no --

20 A. Allow me, because the translations are not adequate, the

21 translations of your questions. Our entire study is based on analysing

22 the impact location. We didn't analyse the demarcation line, et cetera.

23 Our main task was to determine the projectile used and attempt to

24 determine, on the basis of the effects of that device, to try and

25 determine whether it was possible for such a projectile to be used and our

Page 20449

1 conclusion was that this was not correct and you are insisting on these

2 things.

3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... In your report, in your

4 report, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you base your conclusions that it

5 was not possible in this report that you prepared on the -- your use of

6 the Sandia study. May I just read page 54 your report the third to last

7 line, "This analysis," referring to your report, "Uses the latest results

8 in testing the penetration of natural obstacles and concrete conducted at

9 the Sandia National Laboratories in the United States." And having

10 analysed the findings using the Sandia results, you conclude that the

11 Sandia study proves that from what the evidence at Markale indicates that

12 there is no known mortar of such ballistics and you make that conclusion

13 at page 56.

14 A. Yes, in the case of concrete. In the case of concrete.

15 Q. Did you bring your source with you, the Sandia study? Do you have

16 it with you now in your attache case?

17 A. No, no. No, I didn't bring it with me.

18 Q. Would you object if I -- maybe I could ask the Court if -- I will

19 just proceed, I'm sorry.

20 I have a copy of the report from the Sandia National Laboratories

21 which I propose to tender into evidence.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.


24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] First thing, as usual, as it

25 happens, can we please have the Serb version; yes or no? Yes or no?

Page 20450












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20451

1 JUDGE ORIE: Whether there's a Serbian translation of this

2 document?

3 MR. STAMP: No, Mr. President, we --

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Why not.

5 MR. STAMP: The document is a document which is used in the

6 Defence study it is the basis of their report. We are entitled to take it

7 that the Defence has their own resources.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask you --

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. It's not a

10 problem. I thought you were referring to an additional document.

11 THE REGISTRAR: For the record this is document P3801.


13 Q. The Sandia National Lab, Professor -- Professor, Professor, I'm

14 not asking you to read the report or to look at it as you have read it and

15 used it for your report. Usher, could you please take the document.

16 Thank you very much.

17 The Sandia National Lab, Professor, is considered generally and

18 clearly by you to be the leading researchers in the penetration of

19 projectiles into various materials. I'm awaiting an answer,

20 Mr. President.

21 A. [In English] Is it question for me.

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. Yes, I do know.

24 Q. And they are --

25 A. I gave you the address thereof.

Page 20452

1 Q. In their latest work, "Penetration Equations", are there

2 limitation for the conditions for these equations to apply?

3 A. If you please, do you have the report, the Sandia report 980978,

4 there are two reports here, not just one. [In English] "Simplify a

5 analytical model for penetration for lateral loading," Sandia 980978.

6 Q. Are there any limitations, that's a question, for the application

7 of the Sandia study?

8 A. [Interpretation] For this case, no, the one I mentioned, no, but

9 let me just tell you Vukasinovic did exactly this, he personally did this

10 calculation.

11 Q. Did you do the calculation, do you understand the calculation?

12 Doctor, please just answer my question, did you or did you not, time goes?

13 A. I am prepared to show you, yes, yes, yes, I can show you the

14 calculation.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there is one

16 question asked in this tone, asking the Professor if he understands a

17 calculation. I'm afraid that is really rather rude.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I notice that there is some irritation. I'm

19 not going to give you my observations as what caused it but may I ask you,

20 Professor Vilicic, to strictly limit your answers to what you have been

21 asked and Mr. Stamp, the more gentle you ask something, the better the

22 chance you get the answer you want.

23 MR. STAMP: I apologise to the Court and to the witness. I never

24 mean to be impolite, it's just that I'm trying to press along as quickly

25 as possible.

Page 20453

1 JUDGE ORIE: Could I please -- Mr. -- If there is any need to

2 consult it should be done at such a level of ...

3 [Defence counsel and accused confer]


5 Q. Doctor --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, would you please wait until the Defence

7 has had the opportunity to consult with General Galic.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in order not to

9 waste time, what we will do at the end, which I hope will come soon, at

10 the end of the cross-examination by Mr. Stamp we will need to confer for a

11 few moments. These are difficult technical questions to do with

12 General Galic and we really need to confer. If you will allow us, of

13 course. Thank you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will continue.


16 Q. Could you have a look at page 6 of the study? Did you use those

17 equations there, equations 3.1 and 3.2?

18 Perhaps it would be easier if we look at appendix 2, the authors

19 have changed the figures in appendix 2 to the metric system just for

20 clarification, in the early part of the document, at page number V the

21 report is written in U.S. units but in the nomenclature in appendix A they

22 are written in international units.

23 Did you use these equations, equations A 3.1?

24 A. Can I have it back on 3.1, please? This calculation, this formula

25 does not correspond to our formula. These are given in the English system

Page 20454

1 of measurements so these coefficients that are mentioned here do not

2 correspond to the metric system.

3 Q. Are you looking at appendix 2?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- you turn back now to page 5, didn't

5 you, Professor Vilicic, you're looking at page 5? Could we just look on

6 the ELMO what page --

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, page 6.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You will find the equivalent in continental

9 measures on page A2. That is the first appendix, appendix A, second page.

10 There you find the values expressed in the metric system.


12 Q. Do you see it?

13 A. That formula, yes, A-3.2, that's the one that we used, 3.2.

14 That's the one that we used.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 A. LP is D. For the velocity of penetration higher than 61 metres

17 per second.

18 Q. Right. They have two formulas, one for velocity higher than 61

19 metres and one for velocity lower than 61 metres and you used the formula

20 for velocities equal to or lower than 61 metres per second which is A-3.2,

21 I understand you to be saying that.

22 A. Higher than 61.

23 Q. Very well.

24 Now, there is a modification to the equations for lightweight

25 penetrators and I'd like you to have a look at your report at page 54 in

Page 20455

1 English or without doing that, tell us which modification you used?

2 A. Yes. We did it according to the formula 3.2, 3.2, the formula 3.2

3 calculation from the report.

4 Q. Let me read immediately below 3.2, "The modifications to the

5 equations for lightweight penetrators are," and they give for soil and

6 soft target and for rock and concrete targets.

7 Now, was the modification you used for the mortar 2 stabiliser

8 fin, being a lightweight projectile, the modification at A-3.4? You can

9 look at your report.

10 A. KX is this value here, A-3.4 formula, KX.

11 Q. Now, you used the modification for concrete and for hard

12 targets --

13 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask for a clarification.

14 Professor Vilicic, you said you applied equation A-3.4; is that correct?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's E-3.4 because the --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please point at it? Would you please point

17 at which one you --

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This KX 0.46 times H 0.15 but that's

19 irrelevant if --

20 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I'm not asking for an explanation at this

21 moment. I'm just asking when you applied, you say it's A-3.4. I do read

22 on that line that M is equal to or higher than 182 kilograms. Stands M

23 for the mass?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that's what it says here,

25 yes.

Page 20456












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20457

1 JUDGE ORIE: You used an equation for a mass of over 182

2 kilograms?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just one coefficient KX is 0.46,

4 it's not a calculation, it's just a coefficient, it's a value, a formula

5 for the coefficient.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand but doesn't it say just above

7 that the equations have to be adapted in one way or another for

8 lightweight and perhaps also for heavyweight objects?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what it says here.

10 JUDGE ORIE: A-3.3, could you point at it? Yes. Doesn't it say

11 that that would apply if the mass is less than 27 kilograms?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a mistake. This is our

13 mistake but we made this mistake in a sense that we get a lower result

14 than we would get with this other formula because --

15 JUDGE ORIE: May I just stop you. Are you telling us that you

16 made a mistake but you did that in order to get a more favorable result

17 from your calculation?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A more favorable.

19 JUDGE ORIE: More favorable to --

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this, you get a favorable, more

21 favorable result in terms of length of penetration because if we had

22 applied this coefficient we would have had, as a result, a shorter length

23 of penetration. May I just --

24 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask you, you are telling us that it would

25 not harm the Prosecution's case since it would only be better for them,

Page 20458

1 the equation you used. Yes, please proceed, Mr. Stamp.


3 Q. Just for the record, please note that the modification you use

4 also is for rock as is written in the middle of the page and concrete, in

5 brackets hard targets.

6 Now, overall, the equation, the Sandia equations are there

7 limitations on the conditions of use for these equations and when I say

8 overall, are there guidelines in which you are told that in some

9 situations they are not to be used?

10 A. They probably exist but you want me to know all the documents from

11 A to Z and I don't have this document on me. Please, Your Honours, may I

12 just say something, Your Honours, may I just say something very briefly?

13 So far, I have always stated that what we've used as a basis for

14 obtaining results, we used Berezansky formula which gives the deepest

15 length of penetration and it is according to the Berezansky formula which

16 gives higher results for the length of penetration compared to the Sandia.

17 JUDGE ORIE: You explained that. You have explained that the

18 Berezansky formula is the most favorable one for the Prosecutor's case.

19 You said that at the beginning of your testimony.

20 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.


22 Q. Look at page 5 of the study, section 3 which introduces a study.

23 And you will see at the sixth line, the following are assumptions or

24 limitations which apply to all the penetration equations. And you will

25 see at number seven below, the minimum penetrator weight about five pounds

Page 20459

1 for soil, ten pounds for rock, concrete, ice, and frozen soil.

2 They give the mass in international units in the appendices. Five

3 pounds being two kilograms, and ten pounds being five kilograms. What is

4 the weight, the mass of a stabiliser fin that you have recorded in your

5 report at page 55, I'm sorry, could you look at it?

6 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm sorry, if five pounds are two kilograms

7 but ten pounds cannot be five kilograms but four.

8 JUDGE ORIE: It's not the most difficult part of the mathematics

9 we deal with these days, Mr. Stamp.

10 MR. STAMP: I think you are quite correct, Your Honour, but I'm

11 referring to the figures used by the scientists in the appendix.

12 Q. What is the mass of a stabiliser fin, isn't it 1.2 kilograms?

13 A. Minimum, minimum 1.2. Average.

14 Q. The size you used, according to your report in the equation was

15 1.2 kilograms; is that correct?

16 A. Yes, that's correct, in all the calculations according to all

17 methods.

18 Q. As a scientist, giving an expert report to a Court, wherein that

19 report you say you rely on a particular study and analysis to form a

20 conclusion that an incident as important as Markale is a hoax, couldn't

21 have happened, wouldn't it be prudent to indicate to the Court all of the

22 situations in which you have applied the study outside of its own

23 limitations and conditions? In other words, you have given us a lot of

24 mathematical figures in your equations, shouldn't you have told the Court

25 about these figures and give an explanation why you did not abide by the

Page 20460

1 researchers and scientists at the Sandia National Lab?

2 A. First of all, first of all, what you are insisting on insisting to

3 discredit me as a scientist, I'd like to thank you.

4 Q. I'm not doing that. I apologise.

5 A. Second thing, before this Chamber, before this Chamber I have

6 said, stated from the beginning, and I'm saying and stating this now, what

7 I suggest, if this is possible, according to the least favorable

8 Berezansky formula we can assess the events on the Markale market and you

9 can see, you will see that Berezansky formula confirms this, Sandia

10 formula is not the basis. We have also quoted the Sandia laboratory but

11 it gives lower results for the length of penetration compared to the

12 Berezansky's formula.

13 Q. We will get to the Berezansky formula later. You can rely upon

14 that. But you use a Sandia report in the document that you have written,

15 prepared yourself and given to the Court and that is why I'm asking

16 questions about it.

17 I don't know if this is an appropriate time?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes I think it would be an appropriate time for a

19 break. You would have half an hour left approximately.

20 MR. STAMP: Pardon me.

21 JUDGE ORIE: You would have half an hour left.

22 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, I would respectfully apply --

23 JUDGE ORIE: If you would more efficiently put your questions to

24 the witness, it could be done in approximately half that time, Mr. Stamp.

25 Clear questions give clear answers and as you noticed, whenever the

Page 20461

1 witness goes on paths you did not invite him to go on, the Chamber

2 interferes.

3 MR. STAMP: The problem is it appears sometimes impolite and it to

4 some extent text interrupts the work of the interpreters if I interrupt

5 him every time he goes off on a tangent and that is -- there is a huge

6 mass of material which the Court should be at least brought to the

7 attention of the Court.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, we'll consider the matter but please keep

9 in mind that according to our calculations you have 35 minutes left.

10 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President, I will try to proceed as

11 efficiently as I can.

12 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

13 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam usher, could you please --

15 MR. STAMP: Before the witness is called into court, may I

16 indicate to the Court that having regard to the time that has been

17 indicated, there would be quite a variety of matters which this Court

18 ought to be aware of, matters involving the fuse, the components of a fuse

19 which is a very important consideration, the fragments from 120 millimetre

20 mortar, the issue of the absence of 82 millimetre mortar stabiliser fins

21 which the expert in his report has used to draw conclusions, and some

22 other conclusions that he has drawn in respect to other incidents need to

23 be explored.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand, I do understand, Mr. Stamp. On

25 the other hand, the Defence was given such time, I mean sometimes it can

Page 20462












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20463

1 be really done far more quickly so please start and we'll see where we end

2 but as a starting point, you've got 38 minutes left.

3 MR. STAMP: That's another thing that --

4 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I do not agree, I see that the Defence took a

5 little bit over the five and a half hours granted, they used as a matter

6 of fact, five hours and 46 minutes, that would then add to your 38 minutes

7 remaining another 16 minutes.

8 MR. STAMP: 52. I'm told.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, makes 54 minutes. Otherwise you will have to

10 prioritise. We might not be able to go into every single detail of every

11 part of the report.

12 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please escort the witness into the

14 courtroom.

15 [The witness entered court]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.

17 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.

18 Q. Doctor, could you have a look at page 54 of your report, I'm

19 sorry, page 55 of the English version of your report.

20 A. [In English] Yes, I'm looking.

21 Q. And look at the penultimate line in which I will say the values of

22 the coefficient KS is 0.9.

23 A. [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that.

24 Q. Now, the S, the KS factor is the factor that relates to the

25 resistance of the target material or the surface to penetration?

Page 20464

1 A. Yes, two co-efficients S and K.

2 Q. And you use 0.9?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Have a look at the body of page 11 of the Sandia study at page 11.

5 You are aware that the Sandia institute is a military research laboratory

6 and when they speak of concrete and hard material, they include reinforced

7 concrete.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now, in the middle of page 11, there is a sentence, and I'll read

10 it, "In those cases where insufficient data exists to permit calculating

11 the S number for concrete, a default value of S equals 0.9 is

12 recommended." And that is the one you used. Please answer verbally,

13 orally?

14 A. That's right. That's correct. That's the value.

15 Q. Would it also give assistance in the S number for soil in the

16 section beginning on the same page, going over into page 12?

17 A. For soil, yes, but I don't know what that has to do with concrete.

18 Q. They recommended among these S numbers 8 to 10 for soil fill

19 material with the S number range depending on compaction. You see that?

20 A. For S it says from 15 to 5.

21 Q. Do you see in the middle of page 4.2 on page 12 where it

22 recommends an S number of 8 to 10 for soil fill material with a S number

23 range depending on compaction?

24 A. Yes, various values are given here for S.

25 Q. I suggest to you --

Page 20465

1 A. And in our case, it would be between 2 and 4, that would be more

2 or less what Borko Zecevic said the ground at Markale was such.

3 Q. Firstly you did not use 2 to 4 you used 0.9, secondly the evidence

4 is that the dirt under the asphalt --

5 A. For concrete, sir.

6 Q. At Markale, I suggest to you, that the evidence is --

7 A. Sir, we took the value of 0.9 for concrete, concrete isn't soil.

8 Q. I suggest to you that by using the S factor of 0.9 for concrete

9 and applying that to the Markale situation where there was soil and the

10 recommended S factor is 8 to 10 depending on the compaction of the soil is

11 effectively reducing ten-fold the depth that you would arrive at in your

12 calculations.

13 A. That's not correct. First of all, the ground wasn't soil, it

14 wasn't compact soil. The first time we heard what kind of ground it was

15 was from Zecevic. It says clearly that it was macadam, expert Higgs said

16 macadam. I said also that unfortunately Markale was covered and that it

17 wasn't possible to determine with precision what was beneath the asphalt.

18 In any event, on the photographs, in the photographs, you can see small

19 stones, there was stone down below.

20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... First of all you say you

21 weren't able to determine with precision the condition of the surface.

22 I'd like you to have a look at the Sandia report, very quickly, please at

23 page -- if I could find this quickly, --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Before doing so, what was the composition of the

25 surface, in your view, according to Professor Zecevic? What did he say

Page 20466

1 about it?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Zecevic said that it was a

3 macadam surface and Higgs said that. Macadam, in English, is tarmac.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Please listen to me very carefully. I only asked

5 Zecevic. How thick was the asphalt layer, according to Zecevic?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say exactly, two to three

7 centimetres, I don't know, I'd have to have a look. I haven't remembered

8 that part.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I will read to you, that's perhaps useful for your

10 next answers, that Professor Zecevic said, "There was a layer of asphalt

11 probably two centimetres thick and the underneath there was sand and small

12 rocks, gravel, small stones."

13 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.

14 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.

15 Q. And for future reference, the UNPROFOR report, there was a force

16 engineer with that type of specialty who said that below the asphalt it

17 was soil and pebbles, that is written in the report by Sergeant Jeff Dubon

18 [phoen].

19 You said that you did not have precise information, Doctor, about

20 the quality of the surface. Have a look at page 13 of the Sandia study

21 quickly, please. Page 13. Section 5 speaks about the accuracy of the

22 equations and it says, it is virtually impossible to differentiate between

23 the accuracy of the penetration equations and the accuracy of the S

24 number," and the S number is what applies, the surface. If you are using

25 these equations, and as you have said you did not know what the surface

Page 20467

1 was about, should you not have advised the recipients of your report about

2 this accuracy factor? Do you think it would have been prudent to have

3 noted in your report the accuracy issues?

4 A. For the Trial Chamber, yes.

5 Q. It also says that when the term for a lightweight penetrators is

6 applicable, which you -- I'll just read. You said -- not you, the report

7 indicates that when the term for lightweight penetrators --

8 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Stamp, plead read out slowly.

9 MR. STAMP: The report indicates that when "a term for a

10 lightweight penetrators is applicable, KH, KS, the inaccuracy is likely to

11 be greater." It also says that the "equation for the S number for a rock

12 has an inaccuracy of 20 per cent when the data is very good to as much as

13 100 per cent when the data especially the Q value is little more than a

14 guess." Do you think it would have been prudent to indicate that there

15 was these considerations that would have applied to the use of the

16 equation?

17 A. I think that the value, the -- at the moment, I think that we

18 should have mentioned everything relevant so that the Trial Chamber could

19 have all the information, but it doesn't make -- it doesn't introduce any

20 significant changes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I just ask you whether a 100 per cent

22 deviation would not make a significant change to the outcome of the

23 equation?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, an error of 100 per

25 cent is still such that it would not have an effect on our conclusions.

Page 20468












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20469

1 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm not asking you -- I mean it would have an

2 effect on the numeric outcome of your calculations I take it, but I do

3 understand that --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: That you take it that it would not make any change to

6 the conclusion as to whether, in this particular case of the Markale

7 market whether the projectile would have been fired from one side of the

8 confrontation line or from the other side; is that right, witness?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It wouldn't have changed the

10 conclusion that the stabiliser, the normal mortar shell can penetrate to

11 such a depth in the ground, regardless of the fact that we didn't know,

12 given the information that we had, certain factors.

13 JUDGE ORIE: What do we not know?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we didn't know with

15 were precision what the nature of the ground was in order to use the

16 nature of the ground you need to use a special procedure.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you and try to better understand your

18 testimony. I understood your testimony to be that for a tail fin to be

19 embedded in the ground at a depth of 20 to 25 centimetres that it could

20 never have landed there, on the basis of your calculations, it could never

21 have been embedded there as a result of firing that the projectile by a

22 120 millimetre mortar. So your calculations exclude for the

23 possibility --

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such a depth of penetration.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you say that we have some uncertainties

Page 20470

1 about the exact composition of the soil but whatever that would be, you

2 could exclude even if that K value would be -- well let's say

3 significantly deviant from the one you used; is that your testimony?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, for the Sandia National

5 Laboratory equations.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I then perhaps put a few questions to you

7 in this respect in order to clarify the issue and could I perhaps ask you

8 to follow me in a few assumptions.

9 Madam usher, could you please put this document on the ELMO for

10 me?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have also prepared

12 some sketches that relate to the explanations I'd like to give.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please look at this sketch? It represents

14 more or less in the sketch what is the Prosecution's case. The

15 Prosecution's case is that it is alleged that the mortar was fired

16 somewhere from the hills in -- near the area of Mrkovici and landed on the

17 Markale market. So what I'm now trying to find out together with you,

18 whether your calculations would exclude for certain that this could be

19 true even if there was a deviation of the K value of 100 per cent, as you

20 said.

21 I'll try to explain what I did write down on this sketch, and

22 please correct me immediately if there's any specific reason that I'm

23 wrong.

24 I took, as a matter of fact, the speed, the velocity at firing for

25 a high charge, that would be 0 plus 6 that would cause a speed of 322

Page 20471

1 metres per second at firing. Is that correct?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: That would result, as far as I understood your

4 calculations, you were so friendly to make on my request, at a velocity of

5 impact of 258 metres per second if the shell would land at an altitude of

6 500 metres less than the altitude on which it was fired. Is that correct?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, more or less.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Then, upon explosion, the tail fin would be pushed

9 back at a speed of 154 metres per second, according to your report, if I

10 understood it well.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.

12 JUDGE ORIE: What would then be the speed at the start of the

13 penetration of the tail fin in the soil? What would be the velocity of

14 that tail fin? Am I correct if I calculate that at 104 metres per second?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you for asking

16 this question. Mr. President, I will show you on the sketch what the

17 velocity would be --

18 JUDGE ORIE: I would just like you to answer my questions and then

19 you get full opportunity to explain whatever you want. I am just trying

20 to verify whether my understanding of your report and of your tables is a

21 correct one. If there's any need to explain anything else, please do so

22 after we have finished this exercise.

23 What would be the speed at the start of penetration? I would

24 calculate that at 258 metres per second minus 154 which makes 104 metres

25 per second; is that a correct understanding?

Page 20472

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, you did not. 154 metres per

2 second is the velocity of the ejection of the stabiliser because of the

3 effect of the gases, propellant gases. And it's not in correlation with

4 the initial velocity.

5 JUDGE ORIE: No I'm not saying that it is in relation. Please

6 listen to me carefully. I started on the assumption of a shell being

7 fired at a certain speed which produces a speed, a velocity at arrival at

8 a level of 500 metres lower which is related to the velocity of firing.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Now we have an unrelated factor to that and that is

11 that the --

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The difference of velocity is 104

13 metre per second, that's what you said. That is not the velocity that the

14 stabiliser is going at when it is penetrating, it is lower and let me

15 explain.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please explain where I did not understand you

17 well.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if the shell exploded

19 instantaneously at the very surface, there would be no penetration and you

20 saw from the tables that the shell, although the fuse will function, it

21 will penetrate. Here, I have made a diagram. At the moment of the

22 impact, the projectile has this velocity that you've put 258 metre per

23 second. The projectile goes for a while through this trajectory when the

24 fuse functions. At the moment when the projectile explodes, then it

25 stops, the velocity is zero. The stabiliser follows the projectile

Page 20473

1 trajectory until the moment of the explosion and it has the velocity of

2 the projectile itself because the projectile, as it is penetrating, it is

3 reducing its speed.

4 Let us assume that at the moment when the projectile exploded, it

5 had the velocity of zero but now, since the stabiliser got detached from

6 the projectile, it still has the inertia that we are following. Now, what

7 is the velocity of the stabiliser at that moment? It has this value here,

8 you see, proportional to the length of penetration. From that moment,

9 this is when we calculate the velocity of the stabiliser and how it

10 continues to penetrate into the soil, into the surface so I've already

11 mentioned this several times.

12 We took the least favorable case that the shell disappeared at the

13 moments when it impacted the surface so there was no penetration of the

14 shell itself. The stabiliser has the velocity that you have mentioned,

15 104 metres a second. It will have the highest possible penetration. With

16 this realistic velocity stabiliser has less of a penetration that is why

17 we state that when you add up the depth of penetration of the shell up to

18 the explosion and the continuation of the penetration of the stabiliser

19 together with the velocity --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Would you just allow me to reread the last part of

21 your answer so that ...

22 So you do agree that once the stabiliser has separated from the

23 exploded body of the shell, it has a speed of 104 metres per second; is

24 that correct?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no, no.

Page 20474












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20475

1 JUDGE ORIE: So that we took the least favorable -- the stabiliser

2 has the velocity that you have mentioned, 104 metres a second, that is

3 when --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Please read

6 everything. Do I understand you well that the stabiliser loses some of

7 its velocity because the shell, the front end of the shell penetrates the

8 soil for a very short while before it explodes so we would have to deduct

9 from the 104 metres per second first the decelerating effect the

10 resistance of the soil on the front end of the shell up until the moment

11 of explosion?


13 JUDGE ORIE: Where do I find this exactly in your report? Because

14 as far as I can see, on page -- would you please look with me on page 56

15 of your report. You have there added the velocity needed to penetrate for

16 18 centimetres in the ground and you have added the 154 metres per second.

17 Let's then, at this very moment, forget about the decelerating effect of

18 the first small moment of impact and let's go a different way. We'll come

19 back to this point later, I'm not forgetting about it.

20 Could you please take in front of you the table you gave as an

21 extra which reads, "Comparison the penetration of stabiliser of a mortar

22 shell in concrete and" -- no, I'm using the wrong one. You gave the new

23 one with the yellow lines in it where you calculated. Yes.

24 Could we start with an impact penetration of 20 centimetres just

25 as for calculation reasons. If the 20 centimetres would be 2 centimetres

Page 20476

1 of asphalt and 18 centimetres of soil, ground and stone, what would be

2 needed to -- what velocity would be needed to embed at such a depth in the

3 ground?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Higher than 114.4. It will be

5 slightly higher. That would depend on the quality of the asphalt, whether

6 it was old or new, old asphalt is softer than new asphalt,.

7 THE INTERPRETER: The other way around, the other way around,

8 interpreter's correction.

9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... 116, 117, well

10 let's just assume, slightly over because the first two centimetres are

11 asphalt and not ground. Okay. Now, if that would be needed for

12 penetration of 20 centimetres, using the addition you used on page 56 of

13 your report, what would have been needed as velocity at the start of

14 penetration, that is 116 and I see that you add then 154 because that's

15 the power that pushes back, at least the effect of the power of the

16 detonation that pushes back. That would be 154 and that would be how much

17 together?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That will be over -- let me have a

19 look at the table plus 114, that would be 268, around 270 metres if we

20 take into consideration the asphalt as well or a lesser depth of

21 penetration if we eliminate --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know whether Professor Zecevic, when he

23 measured 20 to 25 centimetres, what he exactly measured? Did he measure

24 up until the surface of the market?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't recall exactly. I was

Page 20477

1 present during his testimony. What he explained that he said he measured

2 two depths, that is there was a hole and he mentioned two depths and I

3 think he said 2 to 240 millimetres, 20 to 24 centimetres, I think I have

4 the data somewhere exactly.

5 JUDGE ORIE. [Previous translation continues] ... Said that 200

6 millimetres to 250 millimetres he said between 20 centimetres and 24

7 centimetres. Next question: Do you know how he measured that? Did he

8 measure that under the angle or did he use the height as you took it for.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember that Professor Zecevic

10 said that when he placed the stabiliser inside, he took a protractor to

11 check the slope and he saw that it was somewhere between 20 and 30 degrees

12 and on the basis of that angle, in this way he measured the angle of

13 descent would be between 60 and 70 degrees, I remember that's what he said

14 and he also mentioned these two values. You corrected me, I thought it

15 was 20 to 24 you said 20 to 25 centimetres but I don't think that he

16 explained in detail as far as I can recall of course, I have notes that I

17 took during his testimony so I don't know exactly, I don't know exactly

18 the measurements or rather how, the method that he used to make those

19 measurements.

20 JUDGE ORIE: So we do not know whether he took the measure

21 diagonally or that he, as a matter of fact, reduced what he measured to

22 the vertical depth, the, as you call it, H? We do not know exactly

23 whether he used LP or H; is that true?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Two points. I know that he said he

25 measured two points, probably that this 20 was the nearer point and 25 was

Page 20478

1 the further point but as far as I understood, the stabiliser that's 44

2 centimetres diameter but really if it's a question of a tunnel, if really

3 the stabilisers remained embedded in this tunnel, if this tunnel remained

4 the way that the stabiliser fell in, he probably measured --

5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... That's a

6 different matter. He explained 20 centimetres, 25 centimetres, one point

7 to the next point. If the tail fin was embedded in the ground, and if he

8 would have projected the depth he measured to the vertical standard,

9 would, at an angle of approximately 60 centimetres, would that create a

10 difference of 5 centimetres? You understand what I mean, otherwise

11 I'll ...

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do understand, yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: You need the diameter of the tail fin, I take it?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no -- it's the sine of the

15 angle. That will be the depth for 25 centimetres and if you did it like

16 this then it would be 21.5. If he did it vertically and if the angle of

17 descent was 60 degrees and it was measured from the top, that would be 25

18 centimetres then it was this -- this height was 21.5 centimetres.

19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Do not know for

20 sure at this very moment whether, when comparing the measurement of

21 Professor Zecevic, whether we should compare that with 21 centimetres or

22 even the projection of 20 sine centimetres which would bring us even

23 considerably below 20 centimetres; is that correct?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, we cannot have the depth one

25 25 and the other one 20 and then to have a height which is the total

Page 20479

1 height lesser than that. If it's at an angle then this side could be 25

2 and this 20, then the --

3 JUDGE ORIE: We'll come to that later. But there is at least a

4 question mark here in the measurement of Dr. Zecevic; is that -- do we

5 agree on that?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We agree on that. Here I have the

7 transcript of his testimony and marked it in red, this part in relation to

8 his testimony.

9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It wasn't stated precisely how the

11 measurement was done.

12 JUDGE ORIE: So that creates some uncertainty. I take you back to

13 where we calculated that you need a speed of 268 metres per second in

14 order to arrive at the penetration as we found it using your tables as you

15 gave them to us. First of all, would we agree that the value of 268 is

16 quite different from the value of 528 you gave us in your report on page

17 56?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is in relation to

19 the velocity measured, impact velocity measured for concrete.


21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is true that it is different,

22 yes, it is different because it's -- this is not concrete, it's logical

23 that there is a difference, we're not talking about concrete.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not saying that it's not logical, I expect you to

25 be logical and hope that I am logical as well. Two hundred and

Page 20480

1 sixty-eight metres per second, you said that no mortar could fire a

2 projectile such that it would land at a speed of 528 metres per second.

3 Now, if we forget about concrete, and if we talk about two centimetres of

4 asphalt and other centimetres of soil, stones, we are talking about a

5 velocity of 268, would there be a mortar that could fire a projectile that

6 would land at the level 500 metres lower than the level of firing with an

7 arrival speed of 268 metres per second?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That could be, Your Honour, which is

9 what I said when I gave you this value 268, that was calculated

10 approximately together with the trajectory but yes, it is possible. Of

11 course that the speed goes up and 268 is acceptable, yes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: So do I understand that you say that your calculation

13 on page 56 which led you to the conclusion that a mortar could never fire

14 a projectile that would land with the speed you indicated, that if we

15 replace the 528 metres per second by 268 metres per second, and if we take

16 into consideration that the landing speed would be higher because of the

17 difference in altitude between firing level and level of impact, that then

18 a mortar could approximately cause such a velocity at impact? I noticed

19 that you gave as a value 260 as a maximum in your homework, 258 for one

20 trajectory, 260 for the other, that's the homework you did for me and this

21 is plus two or three per cent.

22 Would you also agree with me that if the calculations would give a

23 variation of 10 per cent, that these two values are not, per se,

24 incompatible, that means that the value for the maximum speed of impact at

25 the level 500 metre lower and the velocity you would need for an impact of

Page 20481

1 20 centimetres, 20 centimetres H and not LP, would you agree with that? Is

2 my reasoning correct?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle, yes, but Your Honours,

4 268 is for the top end of the angles, we saw that 268 to 248 and 20 extra

5 would come to 268. When we have an angle of descent, 56 degrees, the drop

6 velocity of the shell is 235 metres per second and we add this velocity on

7 it to it and that would be about 258 metres per second you have that in

8 the table, 258. So, 104 metres per second is the difference -- sorry,

9 yeah, yeah, that is the difference as if we take this velocity.

10 JUDGE ORIE: If we make all these adjustments and if we keep in

11 mind that there is some uncertainty as to the way Professor Zecevic

12 measured diagonally or on the vertical difference between surface, and if

13 we take into consideration that we do not know the exact composition of

14 the soil which would also be able to create perhaps a variation of 10 per

15 cent or even as the Sandia report says up to 100 per cent, would you agree

16 with me that your conclusion just related to this element, I'm not talking

17 about the damage done to the -- I'm just excluding the other elements, of

18 course, you've taken into consideration as well -- would you agree with me

19 that it is not obvious that just on the basis of these ballistic

20 calculation that it's not obvious that the stabiliser did not play any

21 part in the claimed penetration?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that we have to

23 bear in mind the fact that this surface was covered with a 2 centimetre

24 layer of concrete, that's what Mr. Zecevic said and this can be seen in

25 the photograph.

Page 20482

1 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just say, yesterday, when shown the

2 photograph, you said that it was clear of -- or from the video, I do not

3 know, you said it was clear, that it was asphalt surface. The testimony of

4 Dr. Zecevic - I just read that out to you - is that it was a layer of

5 asphalt probably two centimetres thick, but of course if it would have

6 been concrete or if -- well, there are a lot of other variables we could

7 think of but I'm just trying to understand whether your expertise with the

8 as you write it obviously exclude for a scenario as we find it in the

9 Prosecution's case? That's what I'm trying to establish. And of course

10 there are still a lot of uncertainties, we do not know exactly what the

11 soil was we do not know exactly how thick the layer of asphalt was, we do

12 not know exactly how Dr. Zecevic measured the depth if he did it

13 diagonally, it might considerably change. We do not know exactly what the

14 impact would be according to the American report, what deviation it would

15 give, 20 per cent, 10 per cent, 5 per cent, 100 per cent, but you told us

16 before that it would make no difference whatsoever to your conclusion

17 whether 100 per cent deviation in the values assumed would occur.

18 I have some difficulties in understanding this when I see that you

19 confirmed that a projectile could land under the circumstances given, at a

20 speed of 260 metres per second and you would need 268 metres per second to

21 achieve the penetration. So I have some difficulties.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, with regard to

23 the 100 per cent deviation, I said that that related to the calculations

24 based on the Sandia laboratory formulations. If we increased these

25 results by 100 per cent, our conclusion would still be the same because

Page 20483

1 it's a far lower value than what is in the report on what the measurements

2 in the report on the length of penetration.

3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... And if you would

4 reduce them by 100 per cent they say that there's imprecision up to 100

5 per cent it could be more, it could be less, isn't it?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of these firing tables,

7 the depth of penetration of the stabiliser calculated on the basis of the

8 Sandia method, the penetration depth ...

9 JUDGE ORIE: Are you looking for the comparative table of

10 stabilisers --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the comparative table for

12 stabilisers. I have the Serbian version here.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is it true that there are no values known for

14 the laboratory you're just referring to because I see six arrows saying,

15 "Not calculated for penetration in macadam."

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Macadam isn't included here. We

17 just did this for concrete.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but we don't know it for macadam.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the data we at the time, no

20 macadam was mentioned there. Soil was mentioned and various types of

21 soil, soil with little stones, soil which had sand in it and so on.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Since you have this table in front of you before

23 I -- we continue, I'd like to ask you one further question. You have told

24 us several times that by using the Berezin formula, you used the most

25 favorable approach, and I did understand favorable for the Prosecution's

Page 20484

1 case. May I ask you to compare for macadam the values calculated

2 according to the Berezin formula and according to the Gabeaud formula for

3 macadam. I'm just asking you to compare these two.

4 Am I correct when I read that from the six figures given for

5 macadam, that Gabeaud gives higher values in five out of six?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For greater angles.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, greater. All the figures given for macadam and

8 comparing the Berezin and the Gabeaud, I see that Gabeaud, to speak in

9 your terms, gives, on five out of six situations, a more favorable outcome

10 for the Prosecution's case, that is, more penetration at the same speed of

11 impact; is that correct?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in terms of the numbers, yes,

13 but the Gabeaud method is a method established at the beginning of the

14 20th century and the Sutterlin method was based on the most recent

15 research in the 60s carried out in France. So when I said that, that was

16 in relation to Sutterlin and Young and Berezin's method was far less

17 favorable but we excluded Gabeaud because his method was at the end of the

18 19th and beginning of 20th century.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I will stop you there. I come back to that in a

20 second. Do you agree with me that where you presented different methods

21 of calculation that Berezin not in all situations gives the most favorable

22 outcome for the Prosecution's case on the basis of these figures you

23 presented?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In relation to contemporary methods,

25 it gives less favorable methods. Sutterlin and Young were the main

Page 20485

1 methods and that's what Zecevic referred to, that's why we introduced

2 this. Gabeaud's method is an old one.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. Berezin is even older as far

4 as I see on the -- let me put one more question to you what exactly

5 explains the huge differences in the different systems?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, how this is determined depends

7 on the methodology. They all started from one methodology, Jacob Dema

8 [phoen]. In fact it was done on the basis of penetrating armour and then

9 these methods were modified and on the basis of experiments, they

10 determined the co-efficients for soil of this kind. I have a table here

11 of all the possible values for each method in question and that alone

12 provides an explanation.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that the values are quite different. And

14 you said it's a matter of methodology, I'll not put at this moment to you

15 what exactly the difference in the methodology is. Would the most recent,

16 what you refer to as Young SNL USA 1997, what in the methodology makes

17 that -- the ...

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] More favorable?

19 JUDGE ORIE: What -- no, let me put the question differently to

20 you. These methodologies, would they generally result in a higher outcome

21 or a lower outcome according to the material --

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The new methods give lower values,

23 the values that they arrive at are significantly lower.

24 Your Honour, with regard to the mistake we made, M 015 we took

25 0.46 times N.

Page 20486

1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the numbers.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- did you make a mistake in this table or were

3 you referring to --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm returning to that formula,

5 you know, where we made a mistake. We made a mistake with regard to the

6 length of penetration. We got a depth of penetration that was twice as

7 great than if we had taken the right coefficient because 048 times 04

8 equals 0.7, if you multiply this.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I want to concentrate now on this table rather than

10 seeing what the consequences would be for the mistake you made. I see

11 that you said the newest methodology would give a lower outcome. When I

12 compare Gabeaud with Young, then I see that generally, Young, although

13 newer, has a higher outcome than the old Gabeaud. Would you agree with

14 me?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, for concrete surfaces, I would.

16 JUDGE ORIE: We have no figures for macadam as far as Young is

17 concerned. So the -- your testimony I just heard that the new methodology

18 brings lower outcomes is not generally true but is, for example, true when

19 you compare Berezin to Young but would not be true if you compare Gabeaud

20 with Berezin.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, the problem has

22 to do with the resistance than is say with concrete. 19th century and

23 20th or 21st century concrete. These -- various times are concrete are

24 quite different. When you are examining the resistance of concrete,

25 you're not examining the resistance of concrete in a street or the

Page 20487

1 resistance of a building's concrete, you are examining the resistance of

2 reinforced concrete, concrete used in bunkers or in shelters and the

3 concrete used for these structures is far better and so you get a lower

4 values for the penetration of certain projectiles.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. Do I understand you well that your

6 testimony is that if you do not have detailed knowledge of exactly the

7 composition of the surface and the layers below the surface, that it would

8 be very difficult to draw conclusions with a sufficient level of

9 certainty?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. If the quality of the ground

11 is better than the -- what we assumed, the calculations as you can see

12 were made, greater length of penetration were obtained only in marsh

13 land. You could see that in the tables.


15 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.

16 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, all of this

18 raises three problems. The first one is can the Defence have a copy of

19 your scheme, of your sketch the first one shown on the screen which shows

20 an elevation point?

21 JUDGE ORIE: It could be marked for identification. It was just

22 based on assumptions that seem to come close to what the Prosecution

23 alleges has happened.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The second problem is that the

25 time that your Trial Chamber has taken and it appears it's benefited the

Page 20488

1 Prosecution to a great extent, it hasn't benefited us much, it means that

2 we will have very little time or not enough time. And the third matter

3 that I would like to raise, Mr. President, is -- and for two reasons, is

4 as follows: We haven't asked this witness about the difference of

5 altitude in relation to the highest elevation held by the Muslim forces

6 above Markale and I think that it would have been absolutely necessary --

7 MR. STAMP: I have to object.

8 JUDGE ORIE: We are just theoretically looking at what a

9 difference would be at 500 metres. If the Prosecution thinks it came from

10 Mrkovici which has been said several times, at least from the direction of

11 Mrkovici, I think that does not establish in whatever way, where it came

12 from Mrkovici, you -- in order to draw whatever conclusion you should know

13 at least what would be the level of the Markale market in order to

14 calculate any difference so that's -- but we are talking now with an

15 expert witness which I do not expect to have established facts which are

16 not specifically within his field of expertise.

17 So I would agree that if someone would like to draw conclusions

18 from it, that you would need to know more and apart from that, the Chamber

19 has decided that this is a very important expert witness. As I told you

20 before, the Chamber would have some questions and since it came up it was

21 related directly to what the witness was asked about, that was the reason

22 why I sought to clarify things, not in the benefit of the Prosecution, not

23 in the benefit of the Defence, but, as I hope, in the benefit of the

24 search for the truth.

25 Therefore, if there would be no more time needed, we might not

Page 20489

1 finish with this expert witness today, but that, of course, creates

2 another problem.

3 Professor Vilicic, if we would not be able to get all the answers

4 we would like to have today, would you still be available next Monday to

5 finish?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concerned, yes, but

7 can I just say something?

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?


11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the direction of 18 degrees with

12 relation to the north, up to Mrkovici you don't have a single elevation

13 which is higher than 1.000 metres. Markale is at an altitude of about 600

14 metres above sea level so we don't have an altitude of 500 metres above

15 sea level, not in that direction.

16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... No one asks you

17 to know exactly what the levels are. I take it that your expertise is not

18 mainly on saying that the Eiffel tower is 300 metres high although you

19 might measure it but you didn't do it and I think the questions put to you

20 did not ask from you exactly how high what hills were around Sarajevo

21 neither what would be the level of the city of the Sarajevo so so you say

22 I do not know whether there could be a level difference of 500 metre exist

23 in the area. Yes.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that I

25 expressed myself badly and what I would like to say is the following: In

Page 20490

1 order for you to be able to ask questions about the residual velocity

2 before impact, on a lower point, you asked the witness to make

3 calculations regarding a difference of 500 metres. And unfortunately the

4 Defence is not in a position to do these calculations for other

5 distances. What we do know is that there were Muslim positions which were

6 at an altitude and as a result if these calculations aren't made by the

7 witness, since we can't contact him, we are handicapped and I'm saying

8 this because if we had regarded the position of the Prosecution we would

9 also have had to take into consideration the highest possible elevation of

10 the so-called Muslim forces and then carry out these calculations to

11 obtain the results.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if you would have listened well,

13 when I asked the witness to do the homework, I asked, as a matter of fact,

14 calculations, steps of 100 metres higher and lower. Even made a small

15 sketch there where you find both firing uphill as firing downhill. The

16 expert witness presented 500 metres downhill where I asked for 100 -- so

17 that's what we got and therefore on the basis of that, I put the questions

18 to him. But certainly there will be a way even if the parties would sit

19 together and say could we ask someone who knows about this, could

20 calculate for us the different levels there would be of course this

21 or -- I don't think that there should be any problem that if it's of

22 importance for the Defence to calculate that.

23 There might be 500 metres difference in level for Muslim positions

24 as well. I do not even know if there is a 500 metres difference level for

25 Serb positions. I do not know. It's up to the parties to establish the

Page 20491

1 necessary facts.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President, but

3 I just like to say that I doubt that I'll find a professor of mathematics

4 over the weekend who has the same competence of Mr. Vilicic, someone who

5 could help me to make these calculations but I will try to find one or two

6 experts over the weekend to help me do this. Thank you very much.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps once Professor Vilicic has finished his

8 testimony in this Court where he said that he has a little instrument that

9 allows him very well to make the precise calculations, that perhaps then

10 afterwards he could be of assistance.

11 Mr. Stamp, we'll follow the same procedure that questions put by

12 the Bench were not calculated for the Defence nor will they be calculated

13 for the Prosecution unless, Mr. Stamp, you would say that it is a time for

14 the break and then we'll have a break until quarter to one. Yes. Then

15 we'll adjourn until a quarter to one.

16 --- Break taken at 12:25 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 12:53 p.m.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam usher, could you please escort the witness into

19 the courtroom.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.

22 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.

23 Q. Professor, you stated that the maximum -- and that is at page 54

24 of your report, you stated that the maximum theoretical speed of tail

25 stabiliser throwing is 154 metres per second?

Page 20492

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Didn't Dr. Vukasinovic in his published work presented to the

3 symposium of the military institute of the JNA go -- and this is in 1997,

4 go further to do a more precise calculation of the maximum speed of

5 stabiliser throwing?

6 A. This is the latest calculation. He did this personally.

7 Q. Did you see his paper that he presented in respect to this matter

8 with all the charts, graphs or calculations or -- I withdraw that.

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, so that there

10 is no confusion, in relation to the way the question was phrased on page

11 57 at the end, speaking about the maximum theoretical speed of the

12 stabiliser, what I would like is could the Prosecution clarify this, can

13 they be more precise? Can they just say where this is indicated on page

14 54 of the report.

15 JUDGE ORIE: The witness responded yes, but Mr. Stamp, your

16 question was that the witness stated that the maximum theoretical speed of

17 tail stabiliser throwing is 154 metres per second.

18 MR. STAMP: And I think I referred to page 54 of the report in the

19 middle.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you refer to the speed or at least to say

21 the negative speed or the deceleration of a tail fin upon explosion of a

22 mortar because that's what I find on page 54. And that's not exactly the

23 same as the maximum speed. It's by which speed a tail fin -- the speed of

24 a tail fin will be reduced by the detonation results; is that what you

25 meant to say?

Page 20493

1 MR. STAMP: Yes. And it is referred to in the report as a maximum

2 theoretical speed of tail stabiliser throwing.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Throwing, yes. Yes. Where do we find exactly this

4 term because it's a bit unclear to me, Mr. --

5 MR. STAMP: Page 54.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. No, it's not true, Mr. Stamp, you're

7 making a mistake. The sentence before the equation is, "In order that a

8 stabiliser can penetrate to the depth of it shall possess the minimum

9 impact speed which is the sum of the speed obtained by solving the said

10 equation for calculating" -- no, no, I do agree. You're right. I have to

11 apologise, it's the second part of the equation.


13 Q. In Dr. Vukasinovic's work, did he say that the maximal theoretical

14 velocity at which a stabiliser is propeled backward is the same, 154

15 metres per second?

16 A. I don't know exactly, to tell the truth, but this calculation,

17 what's in the report, this was done Vukasinovic himself.

18 Q. All right. I suggest to you that Dr. Vukasinovic in his published

19 work went on to do a more precise calculation of the speed of the

20 throwback and concluded that on the basis of a numerical assimilations,

21 the velocity of the stabiliser body at the end of the process of expulsive

22 propulsion is 140.5 metres per second?

23 A. 154, you mean 154 -- 145?

24 Q. 140.5.

25 A. Since 1997, at that time, Vukasinovic was not a doctor, he was

Page 20494

1 doing his Ph.D thesis and he conducted a bunch of experiments and what you

2 see in the report is his very last research work with was from his Ph.D,

3 checked with dozens of experiments. What you have is you have data from

4 his published work which is 145 metres but Zecevic himself spoke that

5 there could be different values depending on which author is referred to.

6 Q. Very well.

7 A. I think it states very clearly in the report that it was

8 Vukasinovic himself who conducted this analysis. He is number three on

9 this list and he is also somebody who did this report.

10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Is about 14 [Realtime

11 transcript read in error "40"] metres per second higher than the figure

12 that he gives in his published work; yes or no?

13 JUDGE ORIE: The transcript reads 40 metres whereas I take it that

14 you said 14 metres per second.

15 MR. STAMP: 14 metres.

16 A. So you also want to discredit and disqualify Dr. Vukasinovic,

17 saying this value is not the right one that he said here. This is the

18 correct value. This is the correct value acquired and published in the

19 Ph.D thesis of Dr. Vukasinovic. Vukasinovic did this on the basis of much

20 more precise data of detonation speed and the materials that are used and

21 according to this formula as you can see, the main parameter which

22 influences this speed is detonation speed of the explosive, depending on

23 what was used as the charge the projectile and here he used for 6.870

24 metres he used detonation speed that was measured and he came himself to

25 this conclusion that the speed was 154 metres per second.

Page 20495

1 MR. STAMP: Very well with your leave, Mr. President, and with the

2 assistance of the usher could I show to the witness a photograph.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.


5 Q. Witness, is this a standard slow motion -- well, is the section on

6 the right a standard photograph of the fragments obtained from the

7 explosion of a mortar shell?

8 A. This is a picture of the fragments of an 82 millimetre shell from

9 the prospects of the federal administration, from the brochures for an

10 enterprise that is involved in special production of Yugoslavia.

11 Q. And the fragmentation, witness, could you -- Professor, please,

12 the fragmentation of the 82 millimetre mortar shell is substantially the

13 same in respect to the shape of the fragments as the 120 millimetre mortar

14 shell; do you agree? Yes, I see you have the same photograph, do you

15 agree?

16 A. In principle, in principle, generally speaking, you can also make

17 this kind of photograph for the 120 millimetre shell it's a question of

18 the size of fragments but there is a difference depending on the

19 coefficient of charge so-called, also the quality of the steel, the

20 material, and if I may say, I know that there was the MA that is done.

21 Fehmia Shahir [phoen] has conducted this work on recommendation upon

22 Stamatovic and myself and he did a master's thesis regarding this issue.

23 Q. I see. And to the left of the photograph, you see at the top the

24 fragment shards that would emanate from the side of the shell?

25 A. Yes, this is the evidence that the material is poor, that the

Page 20496

1 quality of the material that the shell is made of is poor. If you are

2 asking my opinion, this is a very poor way that a shell has fragmented.

3 Q. And you notice that in the -- on the left below there are

4 fragments, chunkier fragments, if I could use that expression, indicating

5 the particles from the front ogival part of the shell?

6 A. Well, I couldn't confirm that on such a poor photograph, not

7 according to the form, you couldn't even say that it comes -- originates

8 from the frontal part. That's a very provisional assumption.

9 Q. Well, do you see the chunkier-looking shells in the centre of the

10 photograph to the right? Sorry, not chunkier-looking shells but

11 chunkier-looking fragments?

12 A. You mean these fragments here?

13 Q. No, no, photograph of the --

14 A. In these fragments here.

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Do you mean that this was a photograph that was made on the basis

17 of the fragmentation in length of the shell? You mean that it goes from

18 the centre to the periphery.

19 Q. Yes, I understand that it goes from the centre. I'm just asking

20 whether --

21 A. These are standard-size fragments.

22 Q. Very well. Thank you very much.

23 MR. STAMP: Could you remove that, please? This photograph or a

24 document containing two photographs of cross sections of a mortar fuse.

25 Q. The top photograph shows a cross-section of the UTU-M78 fuse which

Page 20497

1 uses both the 120 and 82 millimetre mortar shells and the bottom

2 photograph shows the UTU-M78 fuse binding and the M62 P3 120 metre shell

3 front ogival part. I understand you have those photographs. But look at

4 the photograph. And look at the bottom one.

5 A. Only fuse UTU-M78.

6 Q. Both of them?

7 A. [In English] Both of those are views of UTU-M78.

8 Q. Would you agree with me that within the fuse, there are several

9 subsystems which are connected by screw fittings of different sizes so

10 there are different thread sizing for circular subsystems within the fuse?

11 A. The translation is not correct. Not correct. [Interpretation]

12 The thread, he said the thread is different, yes, there are different

13 threads, yes [In English] There is different filetage exist.

14 Q. Thank you. And I will express to you that during the explosion

15 process, because the jacket of a shell and also the fuse stretches before

16 it explodes, all of these parts are distorted.

17 A. [Interpretation] It's normal.

18 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could that photograph be removed. Could

19 the witness be shown this document with your leave, Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I ask for something? Can we

22 have that photograph back so that you can see that there is no reductor on

23 that shell?

24 MR. STAMP: We agree that there are sometimes reductors used and

25 sometimes not.

Page 20498

1 JUDGE ORIE: You do agree. You want to point out to us that there

2 is no reductor on the photograph, that is not in dis --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, very precisely, the fuse

4 UTU-M78 when it is used for 120 millimetre mortar shell does not have the

5 reductor because diameter of the hole of the opening is large enough. It

6 is only used for the fuse UTU --

7 JUDGE ORIE: I just stop you there seems to be no disagreement on

8 that, so thank you for your clarification. Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.


10 Q. Just -- I have shown you that document because I want to

11 understand what you were explaining to us about the tests that were done

12 and again, I think I've given up all the documents and not retained a

13 copy. Is there a spare copy? Thank you.

14 Do you see on that document if you --

15 A. That's what I told you yesterday that the checking of the fuse

16 safety is done by horizontal firing on to an obstacle in which it's not

17 supposed to be hit with. It's a check for the safety. It's at that

18 distance when you fire a mortar, for instance, through the forest, when

19 the -- during the projectile of the trajectory this should not hit the

20 branches and become activated because otherwise the crew that is firing

21 the mortar would get killed.

22 Q. Oh, yes, yes, yes. And also tests the fuse for instantaneous

23 action and delayed action.

24 A. In both. Please, obviously I have to explain the function of the

25 fuse in this sense. The fuse, even set for instantaneous and with a

Page 20499

1 time-delay function must have safety at the barrel so that it doesn't

2 explode when it leaves the barrel. That's why it's been checked, five of

3 them for the time delay -- for the instantaneous and then five for the

4 time delay, that's been checked and that's for a barrel that's been placed

5 to fire horizontally.

6 Q. Yes, Professor, and this document indicates that the fuses are

7 also checked for the instantaneous action and the delayed action?

8 A. Yes, safety in front of the barrel so that it doesn't explode at

9 the certain distance away from the muzzle because at that moment, the

10 elements that can initiate the explosion of the shell are not yet in

11 the -- they haven't left the safety position. They later come into the

12 safety position that would enable them for when the shell hit a hard

13 obstacle then explosion would occur.

14 Q. Now, do these protocols also indicate that the shells -- sorry,

15 the fuses are checked to see whether or not they activate instantaneously

16 if checked on instantaneous action and with the delayed effect if set on

17 delayed action?

18 A. This protocol, you mean this protocol? This protocol is only

19 checking for the safety of the fuse in front of the muzzle as it leaves

20 the muzzle and even some fuses have been vibrated and then they are

21 mounted and then this is checking for transport conditions when ammunition

22 and fuses are being transported and shaken so what is done to ensure the

23 safety that after this period of shaking when they are then -- when they

24 are placed upon the shells that they do not explode. That's arming so

25 it's the fuse that arms the weapon, that arms the shell.

Page 20500

1 Q. Very well. But would you agree with me that the fuses are checked

2 to see whether or not they activate before penetrating a board one-inch

3 thick when the impact velocity is 121 metres per second and I'm not

4 suggesting that that arises from the protocol but that is as far as you

5 understand that the instantaneous action of the fuse?

6 A. Mr. Stamp, you haven't understood this issue at all. This is the

7 velocity for O plus one charge, first increment charge why is this

8 checked? Because this is the minimal speed at which the mortar fires.

9 These are also minimum accelerations. With minimum accelerations, we

10 check whether the fuse function is safe. It has nothing to do with 101

11 metre per second drop velocity. These are two completely separate issues.

12 This is just a muzzle velocity.

13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Could you take away the

14 document, please. What I'm asking you now and this is an issue that you

15 know that the tests are for the instant action of a fuse the criteria is

16 whether or not at 121 metres per second it will explode before it

17 penetrates a board one-inch thick?

18 A. Well, it's not 121 metres if you are talking about the criteria

19 it's a bit greater, 117 to 123, that's what the velocity is said to be of

20 each shell -- for each shell to be accepted -- to accept that the fuse has

21 been tested and to accept that it's correct. If there's an explosion at

22 121 then it means that that series of fuses doesn't correspond to the

23 standards that are used and then it is sent back for re-examination. This

24 is the form of the fuse that is accepted it has nothing to do with

25 sensitivity in the field, this is the safety that you need at the muzzle

Page 20501

1 of the barrel.

2 Q. Doctor, doctor, one minute. You have told us that they have tests

3 to see whether or not the fuse activates and is the standard for passing a

4 fuse as instantaneous whether or not it activates before it passes through

5 a wooden board one-inch thick when fired at 117 to 1 -- when approaching

6 at an impact velocity of 117 to 121 metres per second standard that is

7 what is used in the test.

8 A. It's obvious that you don't understand what the problem is. From

9 120 metres at a certain distance we penetrate a board without the fuse

10 reacting but if we'd someplace a screen at 10 metres from that screen then

11 the shell should explode. In other words, you are correct when you say

12 that 120 metres is the velocity at which you check the safety and the

13 muzzle barrel and the safety of the fuse and the time-delayed fuse so this

14 test is one to check the quality of the fuse or rather to check that

15 safety is adequate in the muzzle of the barrel.

16 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interfere and see whether I can take away

17 whatever confusion.

18 Professor Vilicic, I do understand that you and Mr. Stamp agree on

19 what is the criteria, what is the value on which a fuse should activate

20 and that this report is a test that, at this speed, with this thick plank,

21 it would not yet activate if it's placed so close to the barrel, it should

22 only activate if that plank would be at a further distance from the barrel

23 and therefore, the report says no fuse acted on impact with the obstacle

24 or immediately behind it because it should not act at this short distance.

25 Is that a correct understanding? I hope it assists you Mr. Stamp, I don't

Page 20502

1 know, but ...

2 MR. STAMP: Yes, to some degree.

3 Q. So we understand that. Now, separate and apart from that

4 document, and the issue of fuse safety, there are also quite different

5 tests that are used to check the -- whether or not the fuses will react

6 instantaneously and that test really is whether or not the fuse reacts

7 before penetrating a board of one-inch thick.

8 A. Yes, but not at this distance that we have here. This is positive

9 because it didn't react at a greater distance it has to react.

10 Q. Thank you. Doctor, do you know of any published scientific work

11 in respect to the 82 millimetre mortar tail fin remaining on the scene,

12 the impact site, and could you give us a reference so we could check it?

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, can I ask for

14 some more information because I don't think it's clear. I don't

15 understand.

16 JUDGE ORIE: I think the question is -- but please correct me,

17 Mr. Stamp, is whether you know of any publication which refers to a 82

18 millimetre mortar tail fin remaining on the site of the impact, not

19 embedded or embedded or not embedded, Mr. Stamp, or both?

20 MR. STAMP: Embedded.

21 JUDGE ORIE: So the question is whether you know of any

22 publication of a 82 mortar tail fin after the explosion found embedded in

23 the surface.

24 MR. STAMP: Right.

25 Q. And could you give us a reference so we can check it?

Page 20503

1 A. I don't know, there are so many works, but they're not often

2 accessible but from all our conclusions, yes, a stabiliser of an 82

3 millimetre can remain in place under certain conditions. If the velocity

4 is 190 metres it will he remain but if it's 80 it will be ejected in the

5 direction which is opposite to the direction from which it came. In the

6 case of 82 millimetre and 120 millimetre shells, we have various factors

7 given the small mass of the stabiliser, the performance is quite

8 different, it can't lodge in that way.

9 MR. STAMP: Are you objecting, sir.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, for the

11 transcript it was very fast. I'm not sure that I understood correctly,

12 190 and 80 on the other hand, it was at page 69, line 4, I don't know if

13 there was a mistake but it was going very fast.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether it was a mistake.

15 THE WITNESS: 70 metres, instead of 80 because it's muzzle

16 velocity of basis charge for mortar bombs of 82 millimetres.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you well that the dynamics are the

18 same but the values are different from those calculated in respect of 120

19 millimetre mortars?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, ten minutes left.


23 Q. Doctor, I'm going to make some propositions to you which I will

24 call suggestions. If you agree with me, say yes. If you disagree with

25 me, say no. I suggest to you that the propellant used -- I beg your

Page 20504

1 pardon, the explosive used in the 82 millimetre mortar?

2 A. Gunpowder.

3 Q. The gunpowder, because it is IDX [phoen] or a mixture of TNT or

4 CH-50 it has a greater push on the stabiliser fin of a 82 millimetre

5 mortar than a 120 millimetre mortar, would you agree with that yes or no?

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President -- no, I

7 apologise.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the explosive charge is such then

9 it has a greater velocity than if all that is used is TNT. It's a mixture

10 a 50/50 mixture of TNT and CH-50. This is used with the last models of

11 shells that were produced after the conflict in Yugoslavia.

12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I told you, Doctor, just

13 answer me yes, if you agree and no, if you don't and you have given that

14 information at page 3 of your report.

15 At table 9 of your report, and that's on page 9, you show the

16 values of the velocity of the fragments on the detonation of a shell and

17 you notice that because of this different type of explosive, the speed for

18 the 182 [sic] millimetre fragments is 109 metres per second faster than

19 the 120 millimetre fragments?

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would be

21 grateful if Mr. Stamp could slow down, we're told about page 3 table 9 and

22 Ms. Pilipovic has to check in the text and none of these references seem

23 to correspond what I can see.

24 Let's mention which pages and which tables we are referring to.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, I have some difficulties in finding table

Page 20505

1 9 on page 9.

2 MR. STAMP: Table 4, page 9.

3 THE WITNESS: Table 5, table 5, page 9.


5 Q. In the English report, it's table 4 at page 9.

6 JUDGE ORIE: The velocity of the fragments do I see them -- yes, I

7 see them that's for fragments dispersions, yes.

8 MR. STAMP: Yes it's 109 metres per second faster than the 82

9 millimetre shell.

10 Q. Could you have a look at some of the drawings that you did or that

11 you reproduced from other published work at page 12? Look at figure 2.1

12 and 2.2 -- sorry, I beg your pardon, figure --

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Again, Mr. President, we don't

14 have the references.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp was about to correct himself.

16 MR. STAMP: Figure 2.12 at page 11 and figure 2.13 at page 12.

17 Q. You will agree with me that in the dynamics at the explosion and

18 Dr. Vukasinovic has proven that in the dynamics of the explosion of the 82

19 millimetre shell as compared to the 120 millimetre mortar shell a greater

20 proportion of the fragments are pushed backwards in the 82 millimetre than

21 in the 120 millimetre, would you agree with that; yes or no?

22 A. How can there be a greater number of fragments since the case of

23 the shell is four times lighter than that of 120 millimetre shell.

24 Q. I didn't say a greater number. I said a greater proportion of the

25 fragments of the 82 millimetre mortar shell is pushed backwards than for

Page 20506

1 the 120 millimetre and that is clear from Dr. Vukasinovic's work. Do you

2 agree? Do you agree, yes or no, doctor, please, let's move quickly.

3 A. The velocity is greater, the fragments of the same mass will go

4 further, that is what is correct because if the projectile has CH-50, its

5 velocity of the fragments is greater than for that of 120 millimetre shell

6 which is filled with TNT.

7 Q. I suggest to you that not only is the velocity pushing it backward

8 much faster but the proportion, proportion of the fragments going backward

9 is also much higher than in the 122 millimetre shell, agree or disagree.

10 If you agree please say yes, if you don't, please say no.

11 A. I disagree. It's not the same value.

12 Q. I suggest to you that the speed of stabiliser detachment in the 82

13 millimetre mortar is much faster than its maximum impact velocity of 194

14 metres per second and therefore, unless it is stopped by an obstacle, it

15 never remains at the site of the explosion. It is always blown back.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise but

17 what is the maximum velocity of 194, 194?

18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Decisive issue.

19 The question to you, Professor Vilicic, is whether the back-pushing power

20 of the explosion in an 82 millimetre mortar would always be such that it

21 is higher, that it causes a higher velocity backwards than the velocity of

22 the tail fin at that moment and therefore, it cannot ever land embedded in

23 the ground.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It does not become embedded in the

25 ground. It remains where the crater is located. It never becomes

Page 20507

1 embedded not because the ejection speed is great, but because the mass of

2 the stabiliser is fairly small.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.


5 Q. I therefore -- following from that, I suggest to you that all of

6 your conclusions that you have made in your study in respect to the

7 absence of the 82 millimetre stabiliser fin have no foundation in

8 scientific research because it is always blown back unless stopped by an

9 object. Yes or no.

10 A. No. No. That's not correct. That is totally wrong. You have

11 information that is totally wrong.

12 Q. In your report in respect to incident 4, it is suggested that you

13 improperly used a close-up photograph of a lodged stabiliser fin to

14 determine angle of descent when you, as a scientist, know that you can use

15 the fragment traces on the ground to come to an accurate assessment of

16 angle of descent and you have done it in respect to the Markale incident.

17 A. First of all, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that you

18 are constantly referring to me, trying to discredit me as a scientist and

19 secondly have a look at the photograph of the 120 millimetre shell that

20 hit the path.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, you are not to comment on the

22 approach of the Prosecution. The Prosecution may test your report, they

23 may put questions to you. At the end of your testimony, I'll give you an

24 opportunity, the Chamber will give you an opportunity to explain whatever

25 your thought was unexplained of course within certain limits as far as

Page 20508

1 time is concerned so therefore, you have the an opportunity but the

2 Prosecution is under time restraint and therefore, they are allowed to ask

3 you just to say whether you agree or disagree with the certain position

4 taken by the Prosecution.

5 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What I wanted to know is

7 whether Mr. Stamp was referring to -- with regard to what he calls the

8 close-up photograph, I think that those are the terms that he used. Is he

9 referring to the photograph that we have on page 45 or is he referring to

10 some other photograph in relation to the stabiliser because I'm afraid

11 that I'm not following this. That's my only question.

12 MR. STAMP: Look at the report by the witness which was tendered

13 on -- which the Defence intend to tender, it's their production.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was just on the ELMO, I think the

15 photograph you referred to. Could you please put it back what you just

16 had on the ELMO, is that the photograph you are referring to, Mr. Stamp?

17 MR. STAMP: No, no. Could we quickly get exhibit 2245 -- 2247.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, would you please let the usher put

19 the photographs on the screen. Yes, thank you.

20 MR. STAMP: Photograph 00268248.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think this should be the photograph you're

22 referring to, Mr. Stamp.

23 MR. STAMP: Yes.


25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, while waiting,

Page 20509

1 I think that the bell has rung.

2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Quite clearly at

3 the beginning of the session that we cannot sit any longer than quarter to

4 2.00 so you may finish this question and then.


6 Q. I suggest to you, Witness, that you can never use a close-up

7 photograph to judge angle of descent and to conclude that it is

8 approximately 90 degrees when you yourself know of and have used more

9 scientific procedures to determine angle of descent. Yes or no? Yes or

10 no, please?

11 A. No.

12 MR. STAMP: One suggestion, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: I said that was your last question and I keep to

14 that, stick to that. If there is really an issue that should be raised,

15 we'll see whether the Chamber would be willing to grant leave but as it

16 stands now, same time for you as for the Defence.

17 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President, as it pleases the Court.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, we will adjourn for the day. We

19 have not yet finished your examination so we'd like to see you back in

20 this Court next Monday in the afternoon, that is, at a quarter past 2.00.

21 May I instruct you not to speak with anyone about the testimony you have

22 given and you are still about to give.

23 We'll adjourn until Monday at quarter past 2.00.

24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

25 at 1.46 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday

Page 20510

1 the 3rd day of March, 2003, at

2 2.15 p.m.