Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20511

1 Monday, 3 March 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.39 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom and those

6 assisting us outside the courtroom.

7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

9 Stanislav Galic.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11 I do understand that there are still some problems in respect of

12 the tapes that are copied by now, the tapes provided by Mr. Gray. Is that

13 correct? Or are the parties for the time being able to work as they

14 should? If there are no observations in respect of that issue -- yes,

15 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. What we

17 said was the following, very briefly: Is that the originals are necessary

18 to us, not just the copies. We simply wanted to know when we will be able

19 to have the originals that we never really wanted to tender as such.

20 Thank you.

21 JUDGE ORIE: The originals will stay with the registry at this

22 moment. We promised that they would be given back to Mr. Gray. At that

23 time there had been no objections against that, so therefore the originals

24 will stay with the registry at this moment with the promise that they

25 would be given back to Mr. Gray at the time there had been no objection

Page 20512

1 against that. So therefore, the originals will stay with the registry,

2 the parties have been provided with copies. And if there's any need to

3 compare at a certain issue copies and originals or to inspect the

4 originals, you can apply to -- each party can apply to do that.

5 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we'll have a

7 problem, that we never wanted to tender the originals as such, only the

8 sections that we viewed. We would like to be very clear on that point.

9 We don't see why the originals, many more of them than all the sections

10 we've shown, would be tendered. In our mind there's no reason for this to

11 be tendered in totality. What was necessary is to have nine segments and

12 that's all. And also, I gave my word, and I'd like to make sure that I

13 stand by it, is that we would return that to Mr. Gray.

14 JUDGE ORIE: As far as I remember, the Chamber gave its word as

15 well to return it. We'll check it in the transcript, but it's my

16 recollection -- it's the Chamber's recollection, because we briefly

17 discussed the matter, but we'll check every detail, that the Chamber would

18 take care of it after having copied the videos that they would be sent

19 back to Mr. Gray.

20 For the time being, they are available for inspection by the

21 parties in order to see whether, especially if the copies would not be

22 a -- would not be a copy that would be workable for the further

23 preparation of --

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


Page 20513

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What I wish to say was that

2 the first versions that were copied and that I had, they didn't seem to be

3 corresponding to the originals. But because I didn't have the originals,

4 I couldn't compare. The images were a very poor quality. One would think

5 that this was the cinema from the beginning of last century. I do not

6 recall that this was the quality of the originals that were handed over.

7 Now, if these tapes had deteriorated in quality during the copying

8 procedure, I don't know. But we really have a problem here in terms of

9 handling these videotapes, because this is something that was viewed.

10 Thank you.

11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, first of all, I have been informed

13 that a second copy, presumably a better copy, has been provided to you, so

14 that you have, apart from the copy of, as you say, poor quality - the

15 Chamber of course couldn't check that - but apart from that, you have a

16 second copy now. If with -- on certain parts a few lines on it, if you'd

17 like on these specific parts where the quality seems to be deficient, the

18 original tapes are available for consultation, especially on these

19 issues. The Chamber has, as far as my recollection goes - but if I'm

20 wrong, we'll certainly check that - has promised to Mr. Gray that the

21 Chamber is responsible for sending them back. The Chamber will do that.

22 And finally, I do understand that you have only the same intent,

23 that is, that the tapes are returned to Mr. Gray and that the content of

24 the tapes is available for the parties, although not -- not tendered as a

25 whole but only certain parts of it.

Page 20514

1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.


3 MR. IERACE: Might I raise something in relation to that or

4 respond. There are two aspects to the relevance of the copying. The

5 first -- and I should add the viewing by Mr. Gray. The first was that he

6 was to identify, if he could, the part of the tapes which showed the

7 crater in his evidence made by the bomb at the marketplace. The second

8 point of relevance, especially the taping, was to establish where on the

9 tapes disclosed to the Prosecution and provided by Mr. Gray were the two

10 first segments shown by the Defence. I don't know in respect of the first

11 whether Mr. Grey has indicated outside the Trial Chamber where on the

12 tapes the crater appears. You may recall he said it was on the tape.

13 Mr. President, we have received, I think on Friday, two video

14 cassettes which appear to be copies made of the tapes provided. So I

15 assume -- there are two further copies still coming. The two we have

16 received -- excuse me. And we've now received the third one today. So I

17 assume there's a fourth one coming. Thank you.

18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

19 JUDGE ORIE: There is -- of the missing tape, there's a copy

20 available for the Prosecution, since the originals are still in the hands

21 of the registry. So that problem would have been solved.

22 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I assume that Mr. Gray has left the

23 jurisdiction.

24 JUDGE ORIE: That's what I assume as well, yes.

25 MR. IERACE: Yes. Could I be informed as to whether he did

Page 20515

1 indicate on any of the tapes the image of the crater.

2 JUDGE ORIE: As far as I am aware of, he did not. He did not

3 review the tapes. That was partly due to the slow reproduction and the --

4 but I'll ask the registry to check with the Victims and Witnesses Unit

5 whether he has reviewed the tape and --

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE ORIE: No, it has not been done.

8 So if this would be vital information for you, Mr. Ierace, we'll

9 have to seek another -- you'll have to seek another way to get to it.

10 Then the parties, in order to avoid whatever confusion, the

11 Chamber would prefer the parties to say exactly what they tender and on

12 what tape it to be found. I take it since the originals will be sent back

13 to Mr. Gray and we don't need them any more, it should be clear -- perhaps

14 a short note would be the best way of dealing with it so that Madam

15 Registrar has the guidance she needs.

16 Yes.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on this issue,

18 we're going to have a problem. Contrary to what the Prosecution has

19 done - I may be mistaken, but I don't think this is the case, for once -

20 the Defence handed over the entirety of the prepared segments, these nine

21 segments that we viewed in the courtroom. That is not the case as far as

22 the Prosecution is concerned because I think that they also prepared a

23 summary of what they'd prepared. But we only have about two or three of

24 the segments out of six or seven that were shown. So here we have a

25 technical problem because the Defence will not accept that as an exhibit

Page 20516












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20517

1 are tendered the segments that were neither seen by the witness nor by

2 your Chamber. Now, that is a technical problem. I don't know what is to

3 be done, only that the segments should be copied that were shown in the

4 courtroom. I don't know how the Prosecution will handle this. That is a

5 problem that I'm raising.

6 JUDGE ORIE: It's not to my understanding that the Prosecution

7 wants to tender parts of the tape that have not been played or -- does

8 it? No. So in that respect, there's no problem.

9 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, none of the exhibits for the witness

10 Richard Gray have yet been tendered. Could I respectfully suggest that we

11 nominate a day later in the week to do that and prior to that date the

12 Prosecution indicate now that they also have copies from which tape the

13 first two segments were obtained. Thank you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that your problem is where to

15 find it on the tapes that have been disclosed to you now and that you do

16 not intend to tender any part of the tape that has not been played in

17 court.

18 Then perhaps it would be good that the parties try to communicate

19 in this respect so that we can deal with it in the most efficient way

20 later this week.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE ORIE: If the -- just for our clarification, does the

23 Prosecution intend to tender specific parts of the tape not yet tendered

24 by the Defence?

25 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. That is the parts which were

Page 20518

1 shown during the cross-examination --


3 MR. IERACE: -- Of Richard Gray by the Prosecution. We have

4 tendered, or at least Madam Registrar has a tape, of compilations from

5 which we have played some segments. And you may recall that the Trial

6 Chamber --


8 MR. IERACE: -- Indicated it didn't need to see any further

9 segments. We don't rely on those. We don't tender --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would it not be -- just for clarity sake, if

11 you could copy the parts played on one tape so that the registry has no

12 tape on which sequences do appear which are withdrawn.

13 MR. IERACE: Alternatively, Mr. President, if we could have the

14 tape back, we could wipe the sections that were not shown.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That would be -- at least if you have not then

16 lengthy parts where nothing appears, because then people might think that

17 that was the end of the tape, whereas after two, three, four, or five

18 minutes a new part comes up. So that there's no clear order that should

19 be written clearly on the tape in beginning or spots indicating so that

20 there will be no confusion, no misunderstanding. Yes.

21 If the parties would then continue to prepare, then we finally

22 will deal with the matter later this week.

23 Then I have to inform the parties that we had a late start because

24 of the other hearing this morning, because the other hearing this morning

25 took more time and was finished late.

Page 20519

1 Is the -- is there any need to re-examine Dr. Vilicic?

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Then please, Madam Usher, could you please escort

4 Professor Vilicic into the courtroom.

5 [The witness entered court]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated, Professor Vilicic. Welcome back in

7 the courtroom. We had a late start, and we had some procedural issues to

8 deal with as well. So, therefore, you had to wait for a while. Our

9 apologies for that.

10 You'll now be further examined by counsel for the Defence. May I

11 remind you, as I did before several times, that you're still bound by the

12 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.

13 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.


17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 Re-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:

19 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Professor.

20 A. Good afternoon.

21 Q. We are now going to go back to your first day of cross-examination

22 by the Prosecution. That was the 26th of February. You were asked a

23 question by the Prosecution in relation to the state of one of the craters

24 on the site of the Dobrinja parking in relation to the football match

25 incident, and you started answering this question speaking of red paint.

Page 20520

1 Do you recall that?

2 A. Yes. Yes, I do.

3 Q. Very well. Could you tell us, Professor, what did you mean to say

4 by this?

5 A. Well, I said I was told by Stamatovic that these traces, or

6 rather, that the crater on the asphalt had been filled by red paint, that

7 in a way they had been protected by further damage. These sites were

8 protected.

9 Q. Very well, Professor. Am I to understand your answer that in a

10 sense the crater had been filled up again, had been closed?

11 A. Yes. What they did, they kept practically the outside view of the

12 crater but you couldn't measure the depth.

13 Q. Therefore, Professor, except if you could reopen that crater,

14 there was nothing else that you could have used, any other element, except

15 this external appearance of the crater. Is that correct; yes or no?

16 A. Yes. Objectively it's not interesting because the angle of

17 descent of the projectile, we would consider the frontal swathe of the

18 shell and the only question was the depth. But bearing in mind the

19 appearance, it was obvious that the depth could not have been any other

20 than the depth that we took from the report of the security centre and the

21 forensic experts that measured it and examined it on the site of the

22 incident at the time when the crater still existed.

23 Q. Thank you. Professor, let us now talk about front lines. You

24 were subject to a series of questions in relation to the positions of the

25 front lines, and you were given documents by the Prosecution, and these

Page 20521

1 documents were referring to the Serb version of your text, of your report.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know

3 where these documents are now. I believe they are in the hands of Madam

4 Registrar, unless they were returned to the Prosecution.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Are you referring to the filed report in English?

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, I'm speaking

7 of three exhibits that don't yet have numbers, but they are referring to

8 the Serb version of the text of the report. I have that here, if this is

9 of any assistance. These three maps. Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 These three maps, could they please be placed again before the

11 expert. Thank you.

12 Q. Witness, we will start by the map bearing the number 34, page

13 number 34. And I would be very grateful if you can tell us whether the

14 line as it has been positioned on the left-hand side, that is, to the

15 west, whether this line corresponds or not to what you finally kept in the

16 English text.

17 A. No, no. It doesn't correspond. But let me say: With the Serb

18 version - because we thought that the English version was needed by the

19 Court - we also appended also the corrections of the four pages. These

20 were corrections for pages 25, 26. I think it was also for page 43.

21 But -- sorry, no, it was 34 and also -- and for 43, yes. These four

22 pages, we've attached the corrections primarily because of the lines.

23 Q. Professor, I'm going to interrupt you. My question - and could

24 you please focus on the questions - is very simply the following: Could

25 you please take page 34 that you were just handed. Very well. Now, could

Page 20522












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20523

1 you please compare it with page 34 of the English text.

2 A. Am I to put it on the ELMO?

3 Q. No, no, no. There's no need for that.

4 A. You see, just this line here, just this line, the one this way,

5 now it's going this way.

6 Q. Professor, please, listen to my question and answer when I finish

7 my question. Is there - yes or no - in relation to the English text, that

8 is, page 34, as it was tendered, the English text, is there a difference -

9 yes or no - between the confrontation lines in the west?

10 A. The old version doesn't, but the new documents that were tendered,

11 they do have.

12 Q. Very well. Can you please place the -- what you call the old

13 version on the ELMO.

14 A. No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. In the English version, in the English

15 version -- I checked. No, it's mistaken. There's no difference.

16 Q. Professor, for future reference, can you please listen to the

17 questions carefully and answer. So there's no difference. Thank you very

18 much.

19 Now, Professor, let us take the map that you were just handed, and

20 the page number is 47, please. No, the one that you were just handed --

21 Professor. Professor, the page -- thank you.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you see this document before you? Can you please put it on the

24 ELMO with the assistance of Madam Usher.

25 Professor, the line to the west, the one that's circled, does it

Page 20524

1 have any effect on any conclusion that one would be able to draw in

2 relation to the direction of fire, which seems to come more from the east

3 than from the west?

4 MR. STAMP: On what basis, my learned friend, speaking about the

5 direction of fire which seems to come more from the east?

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin --

7 MR. STAMP: I don't know if that arises.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the objection is -- or at least

9 the question is whether what the factual basis is that the fire seems to

10 come more from the east than from the west. Are we talking about a

11 specific incident?

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. President, I'm going

13 to repeat. On the basis of the compass points. There is north, south,

14 east, and west. There is a key, which is very clear for everyone to see.

15 For instance, the origin of fire is marked with an arrow. It goes from

16 right to left. And as far as I'm concerned, this comes more from the east

17 than from the west.

18 JUDGE ORIE: You mean on the map.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Of course.


21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We're still speaking about the

22 map.

23 Is the objection sustained?

24 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... is the arrow

25 on this map. The objection --

Page 20525

1 MR. STAMP: Very well.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Well, Professor, you were unfortunately interrupted --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, let me just -- if you want to ask

5 the witness - I think that's what you did - whether the difference in

6 confrontation lines would make any difference to the arrow of the source

7 of fire from the east, I mean whatever he says, I think the Chamber is

8 well aware that if you fire at a distance of less than 40.000 kilometres,

9 if the fire comes from the east, a confrontation line that the west could

10 have some influence on, from which side of the confrontation line it

11 comes. So it's not really necessary to ask this question.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. But

13 we waste a lot of time on these maps. And this stems from the Prosecution

14 questions. That's why I wanted to proceed in this way. But if everything

15 is clear for the Chamber, all the better. And then we no longer have to

16 talk about the lines.

17 Q. Witness, let us now go to the problem of the car -- of the water

18 queue incident and --

19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel be kind enough to repeat the

20 question.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Do you recall that?

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the interpreters are having

24 difficulties in hearing and translating your question. They asked to

25 repeat it. They asked that in English. So would you please repeat the

Page 20526

1 question.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I was listening to the Serb

3 booth. Which one is having difficulties, the Serb booth or the English

4 booth?

5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Okay. We'll start again.

7 Thank you, Mr. President.

8 Q. Professor, do you recall there was a picture of a motor vehicle,

9 of a car, and this was taken in sine cosine in a way, it was reversed, so

10 that you would make it more adapted to your position as an expert, so that

11 you can view it better. My question is the following: First of all, do

12 you recall that, Professor; yes or no?

13 A. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. And I explained. It was 180 degrees

14 reversal.

15 Q. Very well, Professor. Thank you. My question is the following:

16 Was there in anything that the position of this photograph, that is, as it

17 appears either in negative or in positive, would it have changed your

18 conclusions in relation to this incident; yes or no?

19 A. No. No, no.

20 Q. Very well. Thank you. Thank you. Professor, I would like to now

21 go back to the football match incident. You were questioned at length

22 about the difference of altitude, a difference in the altitude of the

23 terrain. And it was said that around this area there was an elevated

24 position, et cetera. Do you remember that?

25 A. Yes. Yes, I do. It was about effectiveness.

Page 20527

1 Q. Exactly. My question is as follows: When one examines the

2 distance between the impact point and the position where these spectators

3 were allegedly located, the fact that they were slight -- at a slightly

4 more elevated position, perhaps standing, perhaps sitting down in some

5 cases, would this have changed anything? Would this have made a

6 difference with regard to the dispersal of the fragments and as a result

7 with regard to the statistical results that concern the victims?

8 A. If we had -- I said that --

9 MR. STAMP: [Previous interpretation continues] ... but when the

10 question is phrased in terms of "slightly," that is too vague. The

11 question ought to be framed in a more precise manner, for the record.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I think the -- it's clear from the witness what has

13 been put to the witness during cross-examination, that we're talking about

14 people that are -- might have been 2 or 3 metres higher -- slightly

15 higher, or on cars, which is also some, I would say, 1 metre 60 up to 2

16 and a half metres. If that is the understanding of all the parties, it

17 would be my understanding. And I take it, Professor Vilicic, that you

18 understood the question also in a similar way. So on the basis of that,

19 would that have altered your conclusion -- your conclusions and

20 calculations as far as the dispersion is concerned?

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

22 A. As I said, in the course of the examination-in-chief, all the

23 spectators were in this area, in this rectangle on page 32, this rectangle

24 which surrounds this area. They were far closer than they would have

25 been -- or some of them were far closer, and that's unfavourable as far as

Page 20528












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20529

1 the number of those hit is concerned. They were far closer than if we had

2 taken them to be these elevations which were further away and the effect

3 of the projectile wouldn't have been as great in that case and there

4 wouldn't have been as many hurt. So we took the most unfavourable

5 position. If they had all been close to the point of impact, near the

6 area where the game was held, in that case the projectile would have

7 had -- would have been most effective.

8 Q. Professor, thank you. I'd like you to be shown an exhibit which

9 is a triple x-ray, it seems. It's an x-ray of the explosion of a shell.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And Madam Registrar, it's this

11 image. It's this image.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not a shell. It's an

13 artillery shell.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Professor, I -- in French I said "a shell," "mortar shell." I

16 don't know who said "artillery shell."

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And for the English booth, I

18 didn't mention a mortar shell. I mentioned a shell.

19 A. Thank you very much. It's clear now.

20 Q. So you saw these shells, do you remember that? Yes or no?

21 A. Yes. The picture, yes, I saw it. Mr. Stamp asked questions about

22 it.

23 Q. You were asked questions, Professor, about the swelling of the

24 fuse. Do you remember this?

25 A. Yes. Yes.

Page 20530

1 Q. Professor, you were asked questions about the type of material

2 used for this part, or rather, you were asked what metal was used, and you

3 answered the question - do you remember that - for this type of shell?

4 A. No, I don't remember mentioning metal. I mentioned the difference

5 in the thickness of the case, of the projectile case.

6 Q. Very well. Professor, on page 52 you said that -- with regard to

7 that zone, that part, you said that it was an aluminium part. It's not in

8 your report. It's in the transcript. Do you remember that? We're

9 talking about the extreme part of the detonator.

10 A. As far as I remember, with regard to an artillery shell, I

11 couldn't have mentioned an aluminium part. When I analysed this picture,

12 I said it didn't correspond to the way in which a mortar shell explodes,

13 given that it has thinner walls. I was asked whether the case swelled. I

14 said it did. And when it swells, the case is opened and the fuse or part

15 of the fuse is ejected. And then Mr. Stamp asked me whether I agreed that

16 part of the fuse could also be deformed, and I said that it was possible,

17 that they could be deformed, but it depended on the fuse, the kind of fuse

18 used. If it's a UTM 78 fuse, the dimensions of which are quite big, then

19 there's enough room for part of the fuse which is made of aluminium to

20 also be deformed. For UTM-68 [as interpreted], there's no possibility for

21 the fuse to become deformed because the diameter is 25.4 millimetres

22 smaller. It is more likely that it will be ejected and it will be broken.

23 There are no elements that could be -- that could swell.

24 Q. Very well, Professor. In order to make sure that everything is

25 clear. You suggested to examine two photographs -- I suggested you

Page 20531

1 examine two photographs and in relation to these photographs, you said

2 that with regard to a grenade -- a mortar shell, we're talking about

3 mortar shells now, you said that with such a weapon, such ammunition,

4 there were no aluminium parts. Can you confirm that? Bearing in mind the

5 answer you provided with regard to this type of shell.

6 A. This question isn't clear to me.

7 Q. I'll repeat the question, Professor. It seems that according to

8 the preceding transcript, you mentioned that a constituent part of these

9 artillery shells was an aluminium part, and you asked about this. What I

10 want to know is whether you stand by what you stated with regard to mortar

11 shells. And you said that such mortar shells didn't have any aluminium

12 parts. And I'm now talking about mortar shells.

13 A. If we're talking about a 120-millimetre mortar shell, the only

14 aluminium parts are parts of the fuse. And the body of the shell, the

15 stabiliser, are made of steel.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think I might

17 need the assistance -- well, probably, yes, I think I'll need the

18 assistance of a technician because I wanted to cover a lot of things

19 but --

20 Q. Witness, I think I'd like to address the question of penetration,

21 with regard to the stabilisers. You were asked a certain number of

22 questions as to whether the first explosion in a certain sense opened the

23 way or made it possible for the stabiliser to penetrate the ground after

24 the explosion. My question is: The firing tables that you mentioned, do

25 they take into consideration such factors? For example, we're talking

Page 20532

1 about table 8 here.

2 A. It depends on the action of the fuse. If it's an instantaneous

3 fuse, the shell will explode and the shell won't penetrate very far. If

4 it is a delayed action fuse, then the shell shall penetrate the ground to

5 a greater extent. So with regard to your question, the stabiliser will

6 penetrate further if you use a time delay shell, since the shell creates a

7 bigger crater. If it explodes on the surface, then -- I mean, if it's

8 instantaneous, if the fuse is a super-quick fuse, then the crater will be

9 smaller and as a result it will be more difficult for the stabiliser to

10 penetrate further. Let's put it like that.

11 Q. Very well, Professor. But my question was: The firing tables

12 that you used -- not the firing tables. The tables that you used.

13 MR. STAMP: Very well.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 Q. The tables that you used, table 8 in particular, do these tables

16 take into consideration the -- the formulas that are included in these

17 tables, do they take into consideration the fact that an explosion takes

18 place before the penetration of the stabiliser? This is my question.

19 That is to say, is the fact that -- is the fact that some of the ground is

20 blown out, ejected, is that taken into consideration in the tables

21 themselves?

22 A. I don't think your question is -- well, I'll answer like this:

23 Table 8 or table 7, both of them, take into consideration that the time of

24 reaction of the fuse is 1 millisecond. During that 1 millisecond, the

25 projectile passes a trajectory that we can call LPR. After 1 millisecond,

Page 20533

1 for the sake of an example, a mortar shell in the first column, 46

2 degrees, at a speed of 67 metres -- well, if the fuse didn't activate, it

3 would only cover a trajectory of 18 centimetres. But since the fuse

4 activated after 1 millisecond, then the shell explodes only after it has

5 penetrated 6 centimetres into the ground. And these are the

6 calculations. This is a fact that we used in all our analysis, in all the

7 five cases which concerned mortar shells and the depth of -- where the

8 depth of penetration had been recorded. So table 7 or table 8 have to do

9 with crater depth for projectiles which functioned properly, if they

10 exploded normally and if the fuse was instantaneous, if it was activated

11 after 1 millisecond.

12 If you reduce this time, this reaction time, then the penetration

13 depth would be smaller because the more the time is reduced, the less the

14 depth of penetration. The more time it takes for the fuse to activate,

15 the further it penetrates. So if the fuse is quick, the quicker it is,

16 the faster the fuse acts, the more the penetration depth will be reduced.

17 It's faster if this value is lower than 1. One is 1 millisecond. If it

18 were 0.5, that would be -- .5 milliseconds.

19 Q. Very well. We'll move on to another subject.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But first I would like to ask,

21 Mr. President, a question concerning the break. Is it going to be at

22 quarter to or later?

23 JUDGE ORIE: I think we'll have our first break a bit later

24 because we started a quarter of an hour later. I intend to have the first

25 break at approximately 4.00.

Page 20534












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20535

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 Q. Witness, we'll move on to another subject. I would like you to

3 take the English version of the report that you provided us with and have

4 a look at page 28, please.

5 Just a minute. I'll find the page in a minute.

6 Could you have a look at page 45, please. And we can see a map on

7 this page and references made to two impacts. Some questions were put to

8 you about these two impacts. But if we have a look at page 42, you were

9 referred to the existence of three projectiles in your report.

10 A. Yes. Yes.

11 Q. My question is: Would you like to comment on why, although you

12 mentioned three impacts, only two are referred to in your map and

13 something in regard -- in relation to the position of these impact

14 points? Could you comment on that?

15 A. Well, here, according to the record of the ballistics expert,

16 three impact points were recorded, three points of impact that had been

17 hit by projectiles. Two were ascribed to an 82-millimetre mortar. And on

18 a soil surface, on the appearance of the crater, the destruction caused,

19 one could come to the conclusion that the shell used was a 120-millimetre

20 shell. So in that picture there, the first and third projectile were

21 mortar shells, were 82-millimetre mortar shells, and the third projectile,

22 which overflew the building and fell on this soil surface, penetrated to a

23 depth of 40 centimetres, it made a crater which was 40 centimetres deep.

24 And that shell was a 120-millimetre shell. And as far as I can remember -

25 I have the image here - that is a projectile that penetrated -- yes,

Page 20536

1 it's -- image 268 -- 248, and the projectile penetrated at a degree of

2 almost 90 degrees, an angle of almost 90 degrees. And you can see the

3 stabiliser.

4 Q. My question, professor, had to do above all with what you said

5 about the three projectiles and the figure, the plan, where these two

6 projectiles are referred to, and in particular with regard to the question

7 that was put to you, that is to say, whether the projectiles exploded or

8 not in the courtyard of the building. And I wanted you, if you think this

9 might be useful, to comment something about this matter. And they would

10 certainly be much appreciated.

11 A. Well, the fact is that the bodies of the stabilisers of the

12 82-millimetre shells weren't found, so we concluded that there was not

13 precise evidence that 82-millimetre shells were used. But according to

14 the appearance of the crater, one impact was on the edge - this is

15 photograph 268-189 - according to the appearance of a crater the depth

16 of penetration, on that basis we concluded that the shell used was

17 probably an 82-millimetre shell. On the basis of the traces that we

18 recorded, we came to the conclusion that that shell fell at a great drop

19 angle because we made these calculations on the basis of the depth of the

20 crater which was 6 centimetres and the ellipse which was formed during the

21 explosion. These dimensions were provided in the report. And on that

22 basis we came to the conclusion that the drop velocity was greater than 68

23 millimetres, greater than when just one main charge is used, and we came

24 to the conclusion that one charge was used, and on the basis of the drop

25 velocity used when you have one charge, the penetration depth corresponds

Page 20537

1 to the values that we established at the site.

2 Q. Thank you, Professor, for these answer, but my question had to do

3 with the plan, quite simply. If there are any comments you could make

4 about the plan that you made and the comments of the accusation about the

5 shells that fell in the courtyard of the building, it would be a good time

6 to make such comments. If not, it doesn't matter.

7 A. Well, I have to repeat this. I've said this on several occasions

8 already. To analyse all these events, the appearance of the crater and

9 the dimension of the crater was of primary importance to us. It was not

10 relevant whether it was in front or behind a building. That wasn't

11 interesting to us. Only if the building perhaps formed an obstacle to the

12 projectile, that would have been interesting. But in this case, this was

13 not relevant. It was primarily on the basis of the traces found on the

14 site that we determined the parameters that could, let's say, reproduce

15 such an event. We took into consideration the ellipse, the depth of

16 penetration, et cetera, as I've already said.

17 Q. Very well.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, with the

19 assistance of Madam Registrar, could the figure, the almost alpine figure

20 that you produced, could this be shown, could this be placed on the on

21 ELMO.

22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Before taking off the -- that page.

23 In your report, professor, you mentioned the Mihaila Pupina

24 Street number 3, page 42, 43, 44.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is the names of the

Page 20538

1 streets were listed in the record, and also the impacts occurred in front

2 of the buildings in the listed streets, so the numbers were listed. There

3 was Mihaila Pupina Street.

4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: My question is: Where is that spot? Because

5 I cannot see in your map, the name Mihaila Pupina.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I didn't mark it on the map.

7 I didn't mark it.

8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: So you don't know which --

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What was said was the second

10 projectile, the second one that was fired, 120-millimetres, that had

11 impacted the soil surface, that it impacted in such a way that the body of

12 the stabiliser was found on the site of the impact. Yes, in front of --

13 yes, next to the building, in front of the building, in front of the

14 building in Mihaila Pupina Street. I think that's what it says here.

15 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes. But I think we have --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not mark it on the map. I

17 marked Cetinjska Street and Klare Zetkin Street, but for these two

18 projectiles, 82-millimetre shells that were analysed, because this third

19 projectile was the 120-millimetre shell.

20 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, Your Honour, I was wondering what is

21 happening in relation to the answer of the witness. And when I hear

22 Cetinjska Street, and I heard him in earlier answer speaking of

23 82-millimetre rounds, then -- I think there has been some confusion with

24 the earlier questions.

25 JUDGE ORIE: There might be some confusion.

Page 20539

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: If you don't know where is the spot, I don't

3 have further questions on that issue. Thank you.

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


6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Professor, referring to the sketch that you made on page 45 -- is

8 this sketch in front of you, Professor? No, that is the map of Sarajevo.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Professor, would you please concentrate on the

10 documents that have been provided to you. And if you'd like to look at

11 anything else, please indicate that before. But if you --

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm listening. I'm listening.

13 JUDGE ORIE: But if you would please just look at the document

14 that is on the ELMO at this very moment.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't know whether that is

16 the right one. What I would like to have is the page 45 of your report in

17 the English version, please.

18 JUDGE ORIE: That is on the ELMO. That's the one on the ELMO.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. That's

20 it, yes.

21 Q. Professor, my question is the following: The way that you have

22 positioned of the two impact points that we can see on the ELMO, are they

23 vigorously precise or were they positioned as approximate indications?

24 A. Yes, approximate indications, because this sketch is just for

25 indication purposes. There are no dimensions on the basis of which you

Page 20540












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20541

1 could assess the distance and so on. But the sketch that I made, what I

2 did was that I enlarged the map, section 1 to 25.000 scale, and that's how

3 I made a map of this site, because on the normal map of Sarajevo that we

4 had taken off the Internet, this street is not on the map because it's

5 very small.

6 JUDGE ORIE: You have clearly answered the question, and you are

7 explaining a lot. But if there's any need for this explanation, you'll be

8 asked for it. The question was whether it was a precise or an indicative

9 position, and you said it was indicative. That's the answer to the

10 question.

11 Please proceed.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. We can

13 take this off the ELMO, this document.

14 And now, Mr. President, we would like to have a look at the figure

15 that you sketched at the end of last week, and that is the cross-section

16 of a mountainous position.

17 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, it's document MFI 30.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.

19 Q. Professor, do you remember this sketch?

20 A. Yes. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Yes. Yes, Mr. President, I made

21 this sketch, yes.

22 Q. Thank you very much. The question that I wanted to ask was, first

23 of all: What is the drop velocity, maximum drop velocity of a body that

24 is launched in this way bearing in mind the air resistance? So what is

25 the maximum speed while there would be no more acceleration?

Page 20542

1 A. That depends. If we are talking about free fall -- if we are

2 talking about free fall, then we know that the acceleration of the earth's

3 gravity has to be added to the velocity without resistance by

4 extrapolating. That's how I got these results. So I was not able to get

5 precisely the air resistance during the projectile movement.

6 Q. Professor, my question is the following -- my question is the

7 following: Is there a point whether -- from which point there is a free

8 fall of an object where it no longer accelerates, in terms of experiments

9 that were made by dropping two balls and watching when and how they fall,

10 for instance?

11 A. Both balls will have the acceleration. The acceleration stops at

12 the moment when the inertia of the body is zero, that is, when it stops.

13 Q. Very well. In general, in terms of artillery, what is the speed

14 of the fall of an object in free fall when there is no more -- any

15 acceleration that is influenced by gravity, when we come to zero point?

16 A. Well, if we equalise the resistance of the object which is going,

17 then there's no more acceleration, so it is dropping at that rate. But in

18 this case, it doesn't happen. We always have acceleration up to the

19 moment of impact. I am talking about the situation presented on this

20 sketch. What we have to know is that the firing tables were produced for

21 an altitude of zero and for a flat surface. But if you have a situation

22 of firing at a target which is higher than the firing point, that is, when

23 you're firing at a target -- or if you're firing at a target which is

24 lower than the firing position of the weapon, then it is normal that you

25 have the so-called straightening of the trajectory because you move the

Page 20543

1 position, you change the position, then the gravity -- the force of

2 gravity will have a influence on a different angle in relation to the

3 normal trajectory, the way it is calculated. So what will happen is that

4 there will be a straightening of the trajectory and figuratively speaking,

5 we will get a higher or longer range if we are firing at the same angle

6 bearing in mind the distance from this point to this point, if we are

7 talking about a topographic distance. If we take a topographic distance

8 between the firing position and the drop point, the impact point that we

9 wish to fire at, the target, in this case if the target is higher or lower

10 than horizon of the weapon, then it would fire over the target. In other

11 words, what you have to do is to carry out a correction of the firing.

12 That will be the local angle of the target. It could be in positive or

13 negative. And when firing is prepared, then you always have to carry out

14 a correction.

15 Q. Professor, I don't know whether this is possible, but is it

16 possible -- first of all, can you tell us what is an azimuth.

17 A. Azimuth? Azimuth is the direction of firing toward which the

18 weapon is positioned. Azimuth is the direction. That is the angle in

19 relation to the north, which is the direction of the weapon, or in

20 relation to -- in relation to north or in relation to some other chosen

21 point according to which the firing is assessed.

22 Q. Professor, if we look at the horizon, which will be the zero

23 altitude point, is it possible if I want to hit a target lower down, if

24 I'm working on the situation of an imaginary horizon, would it be the

25 point of target? That is, if I modify my angle and my azimuth, therefore.

Page 20544

1 Did you understand the question?

2 A. Well, I don't understand. The azimuth is not in relation to --

3 Q. No, I withdraw the azimuth. I withdraw the azimuth. Did you

4 understand my question, Professor?

5 A. Well, if you mean -- if it is necessary to correct what I said,

6 what happens if you have the target above or under -- I'm just looking to

7 show you the graphic appearance of the trajectory of 120 high explosive

8 mine -- a shell. Now, if the target is below the horizon, as it is shown

9 on this sketch -- may I put this on the ELMO, please.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If Mr. Piletta-Zanin does not oppose against

11 it.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Things will be clearer,

13 Mr. President.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, to me the question is not quite

15 clear. What is clear to me is that the witness has already testified that

16 if the target is higher, lower, or higher than the point of firing, the

17 level of firing, that you would need to adjust your target.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely.

19 JUDGE ORIE: So please proceed.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed.

21 Q. Professor, please, could you please explain.

22 A. Well, I'll explain very briefly. Here. This line here, that is

23 the zero line, the nought line. This is the line based on which the

24 firing tables are done. This is nought line. In this case, the weapons

25 go from nought and the target impacts, target sites are on this line.

Page 20545

1 Now, these are the trajectories of the increment charges. Sixth,

2 fifth, fourth, third, second, first. Specifically speaking, say that I'm

3 using third increment charge. The projectile will fall on the target on

4 this site, on this position. However, if the target is 500 metres below,

5 then this projectile under the same angle of firing will fall here. That

6 means it will go over the target. So, for instance, if this is about

7 3.900 metres, it will go at 500 metres. It will fall at the end of this

8 trajectory. That will be roughly 4.250 to 4.300. What happens is that

9 there is -- it will be firing over the target. Because of that, a

10 correction has to be made. The same thing happens, is that if the target

11 is, let us say, at the same distance but above and we are using third

12 increment charge, then what I will get, if you draw a line up at 3.000

13 metres, for example sake we can take this point that I had initially

14 taken, about 3.900 metres, and if at this point this target is up here, up

15 here where I'm pointing now, then I would have to make a correction

16 because of the change of the trajectory.

17 Q. Professor --

18 A. Do you see these lines here? These lines here are the lines of

19 the local angle of the target, and that's why graphically we have to

20 correct the firing, because if the target as at 500 metres - and I'm using

21 the elements that I wanted to hit, the target at 3.900 - I will get the

22 hit here. Here, you see. And perhaps I wanted to fire at the target

23 3.900. So what I have to do, is I have to rotate the curve, the

24 trajectory. I have to seek an angle because I cannot use the third

25 increment charge, but I'd have to use a different charge that will cover

Page 20546












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20547

1 this point. So if I could have used the third increment charge, perhaps

2 here I cannot use it there. I'll have to use the fifth or sixth increment

3 charge to be able to hit the target that I had intended, because contrary

4 to a straight line in small arms -- small weapons, these trajectories in

5 here, they are curved trajectories and there are very large margins of

6 error. Yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would you please keep in control

8 of the examination. I mean, the witness has now used 30, 40, 50 lines in

9 order to explain that an adjustment is needed. And of course that's the

10 charge, that's the angle. This is, I would say, for every -- it's not

11 really something that is in need of further explanation.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I was on the point of

13 interrupting the witness. But thank you very much for your assistance.

14 This subject, I believe that this is a perfect moment for a break. And

15 with your leave, perhaps we could finish very briefly when we reconvene.

16 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you still need?

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

18 things. This is to do with acceleration and the differences between 500,

19 400, and so on, when we are firing at lower targets.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Shall we say 15 minutes, if I listen to what --

21 and then I take it that you'll --

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Including the answers.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But to some extent you have some control on

24 the -- not on the answers but on the length of the answers, certainly.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 20548

1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn until 4.30.

2 --- Recess taken at 3.59 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 4.32 p.m.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into

5 the courtroom.

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

9 Q. Professor, earlier you told us in relation to the table that you

10 explained to us, which was on the ELMO, that when you are trying to hit a

11 target which is lower than the nought position of the horizon, there are

12 corrections that should be made so to speak. Now, my question is the

13 following: If we examine such a situation where hypothetically speaking

14 there would be firing from an altitude of over 300 metres from the

15 distance from the target, what would be the probability of hitting the

16 target the first time?

17 MR. STAMP: On this issue, the probability of hitting, it is my

18 submission that it did not arise in the cross-examination.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. But

21 this is exactly the continuation of what the witness was explaining,

22 because he spoke about corrections. Now, I know that the witness

23 developed -- perhaps we could just let him develop briefly just on this

24 matter, on this issue.

25 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, the -- I expressed already that

Page 20549

1 the explanation was not of great assistance because it was -- it wasn't

2 subjected, it did not need much explanation. The question as you put it,

3 Mr. Piletta-Zanin -- if you would have read the report precisely, then

4 you would have known that in order to give a probability of hitting a

5 target needs a lot of elements, most of them are missing in your question.

6 So I do not -- I think the whole system of what happens -- and you

7 introduce an additional element and that is the adjustment has to be made

8 correctly so human error comes into play in even a more complicated way.

9 So I think that would be clear to anyone. But I think, as a matter of

10 fact, the probability put in a question as you did will hardly give an

11 answer to that probability. But -- and so, therefore, I will allow you to

12 put a question in this respect, although it does not arise from the

13 questions I've -- to the witness, apart from whether that -- but if you

14 want to use the opportunity to put a question, although it's not related,

15 please put it in such a way that you can get an answer that might be of

16 some assistance.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I read

18 the transcript and the expert report of the professor, and the Defence

19 believes that it is important for the public that certain things be

20 explained because the public, they do not read expert reports every day.

21 Q. Very well, witness. Let us change the subject. My following

22 question is: You were asked a question about the problem of shell

23 acceleration on an additional trajectory above the horizon, 300, 400, 500

24 metres. Do you remember these calculations that you were asked to do in

25 relation to this?

Page 20550

1 A. Yes. Yes. Yes. I gave the possible acceleration with the

2 changes.

3 Q. Yes. Thank you, Professor. Thank you. My question is simply the

4 following: Would there be a large difference or not - I don't know - in

5 your calculations if we examined a difference of 400 metres in relation to

6 a 500-metre difference?

7 A. Well, approximately, as I said, with the lowering of the altitude

8 by 100 metres, for the highest charge the velocity changes by 4 metres per

9 second. If we take into consideration the air resistance and about 5.7

10 metres per second if we do not take into consideration the air

11 resistance. So basically for 400 metres you can say that there would be a

12 4 metre a second difference, if the weapon is 100 metres higher than the

13 target it would be about 4 metres per second difference in speed, but

14 depending on the data for calculating the trajectory, as I've already

15 said.

16 Q. Thank you. Very last question: In relation to the methods that

17 you used and in relation to any comments that you could make with respect

18 to what was found by the studies, the examinations, that were conducted in

19 Sarajevo before you -- that is, did you know the results of such and such

20 an expert, for instance, Mr. Zecevic, and such and such an institute in

21 Sarajevo, and my question in relation to this is: What can you tell us

22 about the methodologies that were used and also of the necessity in this

23 case to establish commissions or committees that would be of an

24 international nature?

25 MR. STAMP: Again, this doesn't arise from the cross-examination.

Page 20551

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think it does,

3 Mr. President, because on several occasions the Prosecution, unless they

4 have something else to say -- the Prosecution asked the professor certain

5 questions on the conclusions reached by such and such a commission, in

6 relation to such and such an incident. So I believe that it would be good

7 for the professor if he thinks he can, what he was able to observe on

8 terms of methodology and in relation to his own experience, if he could

9 explain this to your Chamber.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 MR. STAMP: May I just clarify something.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.

13 MR. STAMP: No questions were asked in relation to the

14 methodology. All that was inquired into was whether or not conclusions

15 were consistent with his. And second, I don't think the professor is

16 competent to testify about the international nature of committees and what

17 the law requires or what practice requires. That's far outside of his

18 competence.

19 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is sustained. It does not arise from

20 cross-examination, apart from the matter that it's not in the specific

21 expertise of this -- of this expert, the methodology of setting up

22 committees. Apart from that, the methodology of setting up is only of

23 relative relevance.

24 That was your last question, then Mr. Piletta-Zanin?

25 Mr. Stamp, is there any need to -- no, it's now for the Judges.

Page 20552












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20553

1 Yes.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE ORIE: The Bench will put some questions to you as well,

4 Professor Vilicic. It's first Judge Nieto-Navia who will put some

5 questions to you.

6 Questioned by the Court:

7 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.

8 I would like you to have a look on your table 12, page 56 of the

9 English version. My question is whether this table is based on the

10 Sandian or on the Berezin formulas.

11 A. Your Honour, it isn't. This is a form this table, table 13, on

12 page 57. That's the probability, the hit probability for the Markale

13 market if a 120-millimetre mortar shell is used. It's page 57. It's the

14 hit probability.

15 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Previous interpretation continues] ... not

16 13, but 12.

17 A. Yes. Table 12 was done on the basis of the Sandia National

18 Laboratory.

19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: May I take it that in most of the tables we

20 have used during your testimony the X of the equation is the depth of the

21 penetration of the shell, and here in this table is a velocity, isn't it?

22 I mean, the velocity is the result of this calculation in this table.

23 A. Your Honour, LP is the depth of penetration, and VC is the impact

24 of velocity. The impact of velocity of the projectile.

25 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Previous interpretation continues] ... I know

Page 20554

1 that. But the penetration is linear, let's say. The velocity is not

2 linear. So I take it that the velocity is the result of the application

3 of the equation in this table.

4 A. Yes, that's correct.

5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I would like you to have a look on your

6 report, page 49. You are quoting some testimony, Witness number 2 says

7 that "The shell could be seen over flying." Witness number 3: "I saw an

8 object approaching," and so on. My question is whether it is possible to

9 see a mortar shell when flying.

10 A. You can only see a mortar shell if you are at the firing position,

11 next to the weapon that means. And when the shot is fired, you can notice

12 it if the velocity is up to about 300 metres. But if you are somewhere on

13 the side, if you are in the direction where it's coming from, you can't

14 see the shell. That is to say, if the shell is heading in your direction,

15 in such cases you can't see it.

16 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Well, I have another issue here: You

17 described in your report a theoretical model for predicting the number of

18 victims due to mortar shells. Are there other models than the one you

19 describe in your report which can be used to make such predictions?

20 A. The method that we used is the so-called method for checking the

21 effectiveness of the projectile in an arena. And as far as we know, it's

22 used in a number of European countries. It's a method which is a Western

23 European method. For example, in France, probably in America too,

24 we -- I haven't had the occasion to observe this but it's a method to

25 use -- which is used to examine the effectiveness of the projectile.

Page 20555

1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Previous interpretation continues] ... I'm

2 sorry with the interpreters. Are you aware of other methods, different

3 ones?

4 A. There are simpler methods, yes. The older methods weren't so

5 sophisticated. This model could be realised and developed thanks to the

6 development of technology, computers, et cetera, and differential

7 equations, et cetera. You can use this to make calculations and in a

8 fairly short period of time you get reliable data. But the method was

9 developed, an identical one in France. You check the efficiency of the

10 projectile and of mortar shells. Information on fragments, the dispersal,

11 velocity of the fragments, et cetera, we call this the lethal or effective

12 action of the projectile. Unfortunately, against manpower this is tested

13 in an arena and for each type of projectile it is determined when the

14 projectile is being developed. Now, the quality of the -- the quantity

15 of the explosives and the quantity of material used influences this. This

16 is one of the basic procedures used in order to determine the nature of a

17 shell made of a certain shell in order to determine how efficient it is,

18 with regard to other types of projectiles. As an example, an

19 82-millimetre shell made in Yugoslavia. There were older ones -- there

20 were older. This report also mentions more recent ones consisted of a

21 mixture of TNT and hexogen in order to increase the velocity and in

22 order to increase the lethal nature of the fragments, because in such case

23 it is velocity is greater, they have a greater range, and the number of

24 victims is greater. They cause more lethal wounds.

25 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: If I understand you well, this is a model

Page 20556

1 method. There are other methods but not as model, as accurate as this

2 one.

3 A. That's correct.

4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I have the same question regarding the

5 probability of hitting given target by firing a small number of shells.

6 Are there other methods --

7 A. Yes -- no, that's the standard method which is used all over the

8 world. These are statistical methods, and they depend on the -- well,

9 depending on the statistical methods used, you know, there are several

10 laws. There are laws on the division, and this is how these values are

11 determined. It has to do with dispersals that are mentioned in firing

12 tables and the values, the precision of hitting the target depends on

13 these values. You have VD in the tables. It has dispersal for each

14 projectile. And you have a greater possibility of hitting the target if

15 that value is greater, the probability is less. You're not as likely

16 to hit the target with one projectile. If you have a look at table 13,

17 you will see that when you increase the distance, the firing range from

18 the first to the sixth increment charge, as you increase it the

19 probability of hitting the target with one projectile drops because VX [as

20 interpreted], the possibility dispersal over a distance, this increases

21 with the range. So, for example, in the case of the 36 metres of depth of

22 the market for the first charge, it's 12 metres, so the projectile has to

23 be incorrect on three occasions. And here was one mistake, if you use the

24 sixth increment charge, it can hit an area outside of the market or it can

25 hit the market itself. You understand. I think you understand me,

Page 20557












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20558

1 because since VD has a large value, there is greater dispersion. In such

2 cases the possibility of hitting the target is less. So this is value 226

3 if I want to hit the market and if I want to be 100 per cent sure that I

4 will hit the target, that I will achieve such a result, then in this last

5 column, according to the laws of probability, in the first case or the

6 first charge -- with one charge, you would need 11 projectiles in order

7 for the projectiles to have a 90 per cent possibility of hitting that

8 area. Then if you use 6 charges you need to fire 131 projectiles in order

9 to have the same probability of hitting the target.

10 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm going to another subject. As far as I

11 understand Dr. Zecevic's report, he concluded that the shell landed at

12 Markale had been fired from a distance in excess of 4 kilometres, as far

13 as I remember. He reached this conclusion on a research which was

14 published in the late 1990s regarding the minimum speed necessary for a

15 mortar shell to lodge itself in the ground after an explosion. He then

16 computed the minimum drop speed of the shell to deduce the number of

17 charges which that shell carried and to determine the distance at which

18 the shell had to have been fired. Assuming that a 120-millimetre mortar

19 shell exploded at Markale and had a drop angle of between 55 and 65

20 degrees, could you give me or give to the Chamber an opinion on the

21 reasoning that allowed Dr. Zecevic to conclude that the mortar had been

22 fired from a distance in excess of 4 kilometres? I don't know whether I

23 have been clear in my question. What I want you is to comment on the

24 reasoning of Dr. Zecevic.

25 A. As you know, Your Honour, I followed Professor Zecevic's testimony

Page 20559

1 before this Trial Chamber and the first thing that was said was that the

2 stabiliser wasn't present, that when he placed the stabiliser in the hole,

3 by using a protractor he measured that the angle of the fins was between

4 20 and 30 degrees. I followed the text and I made a note - I think so it

5 was on page 25, line 8 to 11, something like that - and I also noticed

6 that the kiosk which was hit on the edge was mentioned and it was

7 determined that there was an angle of 50 degrees between the edge of the

8 kiosk and the impact point. I don't know how he could have come to the

9 conclusion that the speed was 60 metres -- that a speed of 60 metres was

10 sufficient for the projectile to penetrate to the extent that it did. All

11 our calculations show that this is not possible.

12 If I return to the first fact that an angle of 20 to 30 degrees

13 was established at the very beginning, that was an angle -- a drop angle

14 of 60 to 70 degrees. If you take -- you obtain this result for the drop

15 angle. And later on --

16 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Previous interpretation continues] ... I'm

17 sorry. My question is the following: As far as I understand the

18 reasoning of Professor Zecevic, he calculated the minimum speed necessary

19 for the shell to penetrate a certain amount of centimetres in the ground,

20 and then he deduced the number of charges used to reach that velocity. My

21 question is: Do you agree or you don't agree with this methodology?

22 A. I don't agree because the results that he obtained, that he

23 presented - and on page 27 he said that on the basis of the Sutterlin

24 method, he said that he established that 60 metres wasn't a sufficient

25 speed for the stabiliser to penetrate to a depth of 260 millimetres. This

Page 20560

1 does not correspond to the Sutterlin method. You don't obtain these

2 results on the basis of this method nor on the basis of the Berezin

3 method. And that's why we came to the conclusion that this was not

4 possible. We concluded that in such conditions that the stabiliser could

5 not penetrate in this way, because from a distance of 4.000 metres he said

6 that a velocity of 200 metres was sufficient, if you take away 140 then

7 the relative velocity that the stabiliser has, 60 metres, it's enough to

8 penetrate to a depth of 260 millimetres. So that's what I've noted in my

9 papers here and that was in the testimony that I followed.

10 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Sorry, Professor. The UN expert concluded

11 that it was impossible to determine with a reasonable degree of accuracy

12 the drop angle of the shell because the recovered tail fin had been

13 extracted from the ground. But in your report, on pages 50 to 153, you

14 provide some trigonometric calculations to determine the drop angle of the

15 shell. I'm talking of Markale. And you determined that based on the

16 imprints left by the explosion -- I think that this is the same

17 methodology used by Professor Zecevic. Are you confident of this computed

18 drop angle or the value provided by you is just a, let's say, technical or

19 educated guess given the circumstances of the incident?

20 A. Your Honour, on page 53, our conclusion is that on the basis of

21 the values measured, the measurements which we found in Zecevic's report

22 and in the forensic ballistics report, the parameters 56 and 26 are the

23 measurements for the ellipse. And we determined that the drop angle with

24 the first charge could be 56 --

25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the figures and

Page 20561

1 could the witness slow down, please.

2 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Please, please the interpreters cannot follow

3 you. Will you please repeat your answer.

4 A. Yes. On page 53, on the basis of the parameters which were

5 measured at the Markale market -- that's A value, that's the fourth item.

6 That's 56 centimetres and B is 26 centimetres, on that basis we determined

7 that the drop angle could be 62.5 degrees, if you're using one increment

8 charge, and 55.6 degrees if you're using a sixth increment charge. In

9 other words, as I have already said, we confirmed that the drop angle on

10 the basis of these parameters could be between 55 and 65 degrees.

11 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Professor. No further questions.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi also has one or more questions.

13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.

14 [Interpretation] Professor, I would like to be sure that I have

15 understood you correctly. Let's start with what you stated. You stated

16 that the fragments -- the shell fragments, when the shell explodes, you

17 don't calculate the fragments that go beyond 2 metres, taking into account

18 the fact that beyond 2 metres you no longer hit the normal figure -- have

19 I understood you correctly?

20 A. Yes. Yes. That's what I said.

21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] In response to a question from

22 the Defence today, you were asked whether the fact that the spectators at

23 the football match - and some of them, it seems, were at elevated points,

24 on cars, et cetera - you said that that did not affect your conclusions in

25 any way. Your conclusions, which were based, if I have understood you

Page 20562

1 correctly, on the fact that you did not include fragments that went beyond

2 2 metres. And the conclusion was that if the spectators were sitting or

3 standing but were at a distance exceeding 2 metres but were within the

4 range of the explosion, they could have been hit.

5 A. Yes. It's true that we thought -- we took all the spectators to

6 be on the playground. So these conditions are far more severe with regard

7 to the probability of hitting people, in relation to those who were

8 further away and in relation to those who were at elevated positions.

9 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you. Thank you,

10 Professor.

11 My second question concerns the existence of aluminium in the

12 shells, the issue of whether this material existed in the shells or not.

13 If I have understood your testimony, you said that the fuse was surrounded

14 by aluminium. Isn't that correct?

15 A. Yes. Because the fuse is a dead weight, so to speak. So one

16 tries to make it as light as possible in order to have as much explosives

17 and steel as possible in the projectile. The fuse is an additional

18 element. It's not the key part. It has not got any key importance for

19 the functioning of the projectile, the effectiveness of the projectile.

20 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Did you speak about a shell that

21 you called M-78? Is this general knowledge? Is this a matter of general

22 knowledge that Serbia produced shells -- M-78 shells? Are these the same

23 shells, do they have the same characteristics?

24 A. Yes. An M-78 fuse is produced --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

Page 20563












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20564

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I didn't want

2 to interrupt, but I thought that in the language used by Judge El Mahdi

3 M-78 -- 77, and in the transcript, and in the translation it says "M-78."

4 So my question has to do with the transcript, which is not quite exact,

5 Judge.

6 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] The witness understood the

7 question quite well, and he was answering the question.

8 So please continue.

9 A. Yes. M-78 fuse was produced in the former Yugoslavia. The main

10 producer of fuses was in a factory in Bugojno, the Slavko Rodic factory.

11 But this was in Krusik Valjevo. This fuse was also made in Krusik Valjevo

12 in Serbia now. And for 82-millimetre shells which are produced by Krusik

13 Valjevo you have modern fuses --

14 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No, I was talking about

15 120-millimetre shells but of 77 -- of 77 shells. I'm talking to you as a

16 layman and on the basis of general knowledge. The M-77 model isn't

17 produced in Serbia.

18 A. 78.

19 JUDGE EL MAHDI: No, 77.

20 A. [In English] 77?


22 A. [Interpretation] I don't know what projectile an M-77 is, a

23 120-millimetre one. We don't have such a projectile. Our projectiles are

24 120-millimetre projectiles, instantaneous ones. The 56 model I think it's

25 designated as P1 and the 120-millimetre ones, the fuse can be of various

Page 20565

1 kinds. You can have UTUM 62, it can be UTUM 78.

2 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Very well, sir, you say you are

3 not familiar with the projectile ATN 77 produced in Serbia. Very well.

4 Your answer is no; isn't that correct?

5 A. No. I'm not familiar with such a projectile.

6 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you. If you don't mind,

7 I'd like to move on to another subject.

8 On page 56 of the English version of your report, after the table,

9 you say: [In English] "There is no mortar of such ballistics."

10 [Interpretation] Are you following me? It's in the middle of the page.

11 A. [No audible response]

12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] My question is: I think that you

13 came to your conclusions on the basis of the various methods in existence,

14 the various methods for measuring, which are based on, if I may call it

15 like this, military functioning. The tables that you used, their purpose

16 was to test the effectiveness and the means of defence -- both of the

17 means of defence and -- well, isn't that correct? You were asked some

18 questions about the terrain. It was said that there was a 2-centimetre

19 layer of asphalt, and then that there was stones, small stones. I think I

20 understood that the results were not effective as such in order to come to

21 the conclusion that you provided by basing yourself on research which had

22 a military interest, which was a military nature and was carried out in

23 other fields and its purpose was different, it was to be applied in

24 different ways. That is to say, given the nature of the ground, do you

25 stand by the conclusions you reached to the extent that you yourself -- in

Page 20566

1 that you yourself said that the results obtained were calculated by taking

2 into consideration a layer which was greater, a layer of hard material

3 that was greater?

4 A. Your Honours, as I've explained it to here and having looked at

5 all the additional tables, apart from what is already in the expert

6 report, this gave us the results to conclude that 120-millimetre mortar

7 shell under that angle, the drop velocity that it has cannot give such a

8 result in terms of depth of penetration. Another conclusion was that a

9 mortar shell was --

10 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No, no. I apologise. Let us

11 pass by the question of the angle, this angle or a different angle.

12 A. Yes. The angle here is just a reference value given here for our

13 conclusion that we reached. This is based on a multifaceted assessment,

14 on the calculation measurements for the depth of penetration, and they

15 didn't show that this was possible, also the calculation of an

16 effectiveness of a 120-millimetre mortar shell, and also considering our

17 experience in this, so that had it not been an accident, if somebody with

18 120-millimetre mortar, if that person had hit this Markale target at such

19 a distance that would have been somebody who would need a prize. Now,

20 what we've checked for 120-millimetre mortar shells made in Yugoslavia,

21 they do not have such effectiveness.

22 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Now, effectiveness, do you mean

23 firing precision? What do you mean by that?

24 A. No, no, no, no, no. What I mean is the effectiveness --

25 effectiveness of the projectile itself, the number of people who were hit

Page 20567

1 on a given area.

2 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No, no. It's another thing. My

3 first question was the possibility or impossibility for a shell gets to

4 that depth and the stabiliser becomes embedded in the soil. You said that

5 that would necessitate a velocity that is impossible, that doesn't exist,

6 that is not known, and you rule out categorically the possibility that the

7 incident could have occurred in the way that it was described. And my

8 question was in relation to your conclusion. Your conclusion is

9 multilayered, in the sense that you have used methods that were for

10 military objectives for hitting shelter targets rather than a surface

11 which consisted of a relatively thin asphalt-layered surface and then of

12 stone. Now, do you understand what I mean by this?

13 A. Yes, I understand it, but we used those coefficients - and that's

14 why we've used several methods - we used the Berezansky's formula as a

15 base and the Sandian laboratory formula that we used --

16 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But Berezansky's for instance is

17 adapted but however, you've added an element which was a subjective

18 element, that is such -- you did not apply one specific method. You've

19 modified the result according to your assessment. And on the basis of

20 what? On the basis of what did you make this difference, did you make

21 this change?

22 A. Your Honours, the Berezansky, Sandia, and Gabeaud methods, we

23 didn't modify them. We only used the coefficients and the data that are

24 given officially. Here I have original copies of Gabeaud, Berezansky

25 formula I also have, and the coefficient for such surfaces. What was

Page 20568

1 contested here was the Sandian laboratory method. In my answers I was not

2 really ready to answer that. I was not prepared that there would be

3 discussion about details. In the meantime I have this report. I read it,

4 and my conclusion is that if we have made a mistake in translation of the

5 English expression may not be -- for us should not be used. I apologise

6 to the interpreters, for us, the English term cannot be used. Literally

7 we meant "must not be used." For Sandian method, it says "may not be

8 used," so we as engineers, we could take that with reservations that such

9 a result would not have a high probability. With the Sandian laboratory

10 method, it says clearly that when we apply it for light projectiles, then

11 there are mistakes. This mistake could be to the highest 20 per cent.

12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Mistake in what sense?

13 A. In the calculated depth of the penetration of stabiliser. It

14 would be 20 per cent would be maximum mistake. Then the coefficient of

15 the form that is calculating. By comparing the examination results on

16 ice. Specifically, Your Honours, let me explain. The Sandian laboratory

17 is worked out for the needs of the federal government, and they've also

18 measured the depth of penetration of projectiles in bombs of various

19 projectiles for various grounds, for various surfaces. There was rock

20 surface --

21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting. My

22 question was very simply: Do you maintain your conclusion that there

23 isn't a shell that could reach this velocity at impact point so that it

24 could become embedded in the surface, the stabiliser could get embedded?

25 This is what the point of my question is:

Page 20569

1 A. A mortar -- a mortar projectile, 120-millimetre shell, there isn't

2 a classical 120-millimetre mortar shell that could penetrate so deeply in

3 such a type of surface, the way that it was presented that happened at

4 Markale market, we used that as macadam.

5 Q. What do you mean in classical 120-millimetre mortar? Are you

6 trying to say that they could exist, that it does exist?

7 A. No. There are other projectiles. There are active and reactive

8 projectiles.

9 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Still 120?

10 A. Yes, still 120. Yes, there is active and reactive 120-millimetre

11 mortar shell with -- the very same. This is model 75 Yugoslav.

12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] So -- so that I understand --

13 A. However, this projectile, active reactive, does not have this type

14 of stabiliser as was shown here. An active reactive 120-millimetre mortar

15 shell of Yugoslav production which could have been found in that theatre

16 of operations, in its structure is completely different from

17 120-millimetre mortar shell which is ordinary. It has a different

18 stabiliser, tail fins open when the shell is fired, and the diameter is

19 3. So there are about 400 millimetres diameter. That's how much they --

20 their span is when they open but then it cannot be this stabiliser. This

21 shell has higher velocity and higher impact velocity. That shell, not the

22 stabiliser, but that shell could have hit or does hit -- hits the surface

23 faster than standard classical 120-millimetre shells.

24 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, in your report

25 on page 52, and you mentioned that the two fragments where there is the B,

Page 20570

1 what you are saying is there is a difference here, that these fragments do

2 not belong to the same shell. You said something like that.

3 A. Your Honours, asked by Mr. Stamp that we made some mistake, that

4 when a shell explodes that there is a longer traces from the direction

5 from where the shell has come compared to the one at the front trace.

6 What I said was that this figure 313, only shows the parameters of the

7 traces that are left in the surface from the -- from the fuse detonation

8 in the frontal cosine.

9 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] I apologise. It's page 52, but

10 I'm speaking about the fragments.

11 A. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] The fragments, the fragments on

13 the top of the page.

14 A. Yes.

15 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Where we can see B, there are two

16 fragments marked "B."

17 A. Yes, I can see that. As I said, 120-millimetre mortar shell has a

18 thread, a filetage. This thread goes around the body of the shell

19 so -- or has on top of the body of the shell so that we can have the fuse

20 fitted in with a thread of 2 millimetres, but that would depend on the

21 diameter of the fuse. When we have a light 120-millimetre shell, the

22 thread to fit the stabiliser is 1.5 millimetres. It's a heavy shell.

23 It's also 2 millimetres. The thread is 2 millimetres. On these pictures,

24 in both cases the height --

25 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But what you're saying is that

Page 20571

1 there is a difference. What I want to know simply is to be certain that

2 I'm following you. Can you tell us what is the difference. Where is the

3 difference between the two fragments? Because you're saying that the two

4 fragments do not come from the same shell. Is that what your testimony

5 is?

6 A. Yes. This -- all this selection of fragments, so to speak, that

7 were shown, in my assessment these fragments do not all belong to one

8 projectile. Why not? Because when we have a mortar projectile, there are

9 threads, the threads that are of 2 millimetres. And when we have a light

10 shell, it's 1.5 millimetre, the thread. Here we have a thread which if

11 this is 2 millimetres, that you can see these traces here, not just

12 according to the thread but also according to the length of the coil of

13 the thread in relation to the body of the shell. They do not correspond

14 to the shell. They're not consistent with the shell.

15 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But the two fragments marked "B,"

16 what you're saying is that they are -- what they're showing to be is that

17 they do not come from the same shell. Is that what you're saying? Do you

18 see a difference between these two except that one is larger than the

19 other?

20 A. As far as the size is concerned, these -- in these two fragments

21 there's not much of a difference. However, these two fragments marked

22 with "B," according to our assessment, they do belong to the same type of

23 projectile but not mortar projectile. We assess that according to the

24 length of the thread, it could be a rocket projectile. It could be a

25 question of a rocket projectile.

Page 20572

1 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But what can you tell by the

2 photograph?

3 A. Well, according to the photograph, roughly assessed they belong to

4 the same projectile but they are not one in the same -- they do not belong

5 to these other fragments. That is, there is a mix of fragments here.

6 Unfortunately, we did ask the Defence and we were told that this was

7 impossible to obtain, the proper result would be obtained if you did a

8 mechanical and a graphical examination, analysis, of these fragments to

9 find the exact structure of the fragments, to find out whether these

10 fragments belonged to the same material belonging to the same projectile.

11 This is just on the basis of geometry and the appearance of these

12 fragments that we came to our conclusion. However, we came to a

13 conclusion by comparing these fragments, or rather, this fragment with

14 this fragment, and the thread which can be seen on these fragments, we've

15 concluded that this cannot come -- originate from a mortar projectile

16 because the mortar projectile doesn't have such a fine thread, such fine

17 lines of its thread.

18 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, I don't want to

19 take up too much time. You speak on page 41: [In English]

20 "120-millimetres light mortar." [Interpretation] M-75. This is the

21 third -- it's in the third paragraph from the bottom of the page.

22 Yes. So what did you want to say by 120-millimetre light mortar?

23 A. We called it -- this mortar like this because we used the firing

24 table for this mortar. That's what we used, used the firing tables for

25 120 mortar shell, model -- type M-75. This is official name, a light

Page 20573

1 mortar 120-millimetre M-75, which according to the UNPROFOR report we saw,

2 Your Honours, that these mortars were on both sides.

3 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But if I understand correctly,

4 M-75, this is to do with an artillery shell but not with a mortar. I

5 mean, you have M-78. You have --

6 A. No, no, no. I apologise. This is a mortar shell-type M-75, so

7 this was -- this is what it is -- no, it's not an artillery shell. It's a

8 mortar shell. It's a mortar shell.

9 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yeah, it's a mortar shell --

10 A. No, it's not a shell. It's a mortar of 120 millimetres.

11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes, 120-millimetre mortar shell,

12 yes, which uses a shell M-75, just that there are shells M-78.

13 A. No, no, no, no, no. No, I'm sorry. 120-millimetre mortar M-75

14 can use a shell -- a mortar shell 120-millimetre model M -- P61. It can

15 use different types of projectiles, from different years.

16 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Is there any consequence? Why

17 did you specify here that this was a light mortar M-75? Is there a

18 difference, firing precision, force of firing? Is there any difference?

19 A. Yes, there are differences between mortars. The weapons included

20 four 120-millimetre shells. There was a Russian 120 millimetre, M-38 in

21 the Yugoslav army. Then there was the universal mortar M-52 --

22 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But for the stabiliser that you

23 saw, say that the stabiliser that was -- that was apparently found on the

24 market, is that a stabiliser belonging to the light mortar or to some

25 other mortar?

Page 20574

1 A. It's a universal stabiliser which can be fitted on different types

2 of shells, classical, typical -- when I say "classical," I mean of typical

3 120-millimetre mortar shells of Yugoslav manufacturers.

4 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] To all shells.

5 A. Yes, for all types of manufacture.

6 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you.

7 [In English] Thank you, Mr. President.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, I've got a few questions for you

9 as well. Is my understanding correct that you use slightly different

10 data, as far as 120-millimetre mortar shells are concerned if compared

11 with the data given by Professor Zecevic? Perhaps you'd look at page 5 of

12 your report. You give, for example, the --

13 A. Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. For example, if I look at Professor Zecevic's

15 report, he says, I think, that the explosive mass and type is 2.500 grams,

16 whereas you take 2.250.

17 A. 120-millimetre shell was made in the institute, and this is our

18 official data.

19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... stop me. I

20 am just asking please listen carefully to my questions, Professor

21 Vilicic. I'm asking you whether you and Dr. Zecevic are using different

22 data in respect of these shells. Where they were made might be of

23 interest to me, I'll then ask you.

24 A. I don't know.

25 JUDGE ORIE: You studied the report of Dr. Zecevic, didn't you?

Page 20575

1 A. Yes, yes. Yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Do you use different data, or do you not? For

3 example, as far as the explosive mass or the shell case mass is

4 concerned.

5 A. Your Honours, if the professor knows less than the pupil, then

6 enough said. We've used those results that we officially have in our

7 documentation for projectiles that we made projects for, that we measured.

8 If we have 2 kilos 500 for a heavy mortar shell, a 120-millimetre calibre,

9 which has more explosive than a light mortar, a light mortar shell, that

10 is listed here, has this average mass of explosive.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just asking you whether you are using different

12 data. I'm not asking for any explanation at this moment.

13 A. There is an obvious difference in knowing the problem, in the

14 knowledge of the problem.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Would there be a possibility that shells were made in

16 a different way under war circumstances or that shells were taken from

17 somewhere else or -- I mean, what -- the easiest way of an expert to be

18 not credible would be that he would use wrong data. That would be true

19 for you and that would be true for Dr. Zecevic. Now, apart from that, you

20 have explained to us that you are -- your knowledge seems to be superior

21 to that of Dr. Zecevic. Do you have any other explanation for the

22 difference in data?

23 A. You've asked me a question whether in wartime conditions, if there

24 are circumstances to make a different projectile. Yes, it would have a

25 thicker casing if it was not tasked, if it wasn't used according to

Page 20576

1 standard terminology. It would have to be thicker casing so that there

2 would be no premature explosion.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although, the shell case mass given by

4 Dr. Zecevic is smaller, rather than bigger. Would you have any other

5 explanation for the difference in data you are using and Dr. Zecevic is

6 using?

7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Not cast but forged.

8 A. Your Honours, Professor Stamatovic, Dr. Vukasinovic, and myself,

9 we worked on making these projectiles. I have to say that Professor

10 Zecevic never worked on 120-millimetre calibre shells. He was working

11 with rocket technology, mostly with propellant for rockets, and that's why

12 there are differences in his data and ours. These are official data that

13 you can obtain and that you can see on documents for light high explosive

14 120-millimetre mortar shell.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say our figures are the official ones, so

16 you have apart from that only that he might have made a mistake since he

17 used to work in a different field. Is that ...?

18 A. That's correct.


20 A. I checked this. According to all the information that we have

21 from 1958 to date, he didn't work on the mortar programme. He wasn't

22 involved in that programme. Other people, unfortunately, are dead now,

23 people from Sarajevo, they were involved in this project. They died

24 before the war, after the war, not during the war, and we cooperated with

25 them, we worked with them and carried out tests and so on and so on. I

Page 20577

1 went to India with them, et cetera.

2 JUDGE ORIE: You confirmed what I asked you, I think, that I

3 understood your answer well.

4 May I take you to page 29 of your English version of the report.

5 You write at the penultimate line: "If this doubt is justified, the shell

6 had come from the north-eastern direction." Do you see that?

7 A. The last sentence, [In English] "Stationed in that direction

8 either in the zone -- either in the zone between the territory under

9 UNPROFOR controlled in Sarajevo airport or in the zone further to the

10 north, controlled by Muslim ..."

11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- did you just find the place I just

12 quoted to you in your report. You say "if this doubt is justified --"

13 A. Yes. I found the place.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I then take you to your conclusion.

15 A. Yes. The shell had come from --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You --

17 A. If this doubt is --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I take you to your conclusion. And you

19 say in your conclusion that without any -- it's page 33. You say "The

20 firing position of the mortar that had fired the shell was situated at the

21 range between three and four hundred metres in a north-eastern direction."

22 A. [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the same shell of which you said that if the

24 doubt would be justified, it would then have come from the north-eastern

25 direction?

Page 20578

1 A. Yes, it concerns the same projectile. In fact, it concerns both

2 projectiles. There were two projectiles which were fired at that

3 location.

4 JUDGE ORIE: And so in your report you say "If the doubt is

5 justified, it would have come from the north-eastern direction." And in

6 your final conclusion, you say, "It came from the north-eastern

7 direction." If the doubt would not be justified, would it then have

8 come from another direction?

9 A. We define that term in that manner because of the fact that the

10 stabilisers weren't found. And on the basis of that fact, on the basis of

11 the conclusions of the measurements in the field, we came to the

12 assumption that the mortar shell in question was an 82-millimetre one.

13 Having carried out a detailed analysis of this picture --

14 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not --

15 A. -- The conclusion would remain the same.

16 JUDGE ORIE: What I draw your attention to is that on page 29, you

17 put a certain condition for the conclusion that the shell had come from

18 the north-eastern direction, namely if the doubt you expressed was

19 justified. I do not find a similar condition in your conclusion on page

20 33.

21 A. Your Honour, I understand you now. And there is a difference

22 in -- as far as the terms are concerned. When it says "If doubt is

23 justified," well, this phrase does not appear in the conclusion. We

24 didn't include it in the conclusion. We said that after careful analysis

25 of the ballistics evidence, this led to -- [In English] [Previous

Page 20579

1 interpretation continues] ... if doubt is justified, we use other term,

2 "lead to." In our language, it's similar.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I take you to page 31 of the English

4 version of your report. You write the following: "Most probably firing

5 position was at a distance of 300 to 400 metres. The range of 300 metres

6 corresponds to the drop angle of 63 degrees. The range of 400 has a drop

7 angle of 71 degrees." I have some difficulties in understanding this line

8 because I took it from the other pictures used that a firing range of 300

9 metres, you would have a higher drop angle than at a firing range of 400

10 metres. Nevertheless, you give for 300 metres a drop angle of 63 per cent

11 and for 400 metres, 71 per cent. Could you explain why here the smaller

12 range would result in a smaller drop angle rather than in a higher drop

13 angle?

14 A. Your Honour, the analysis on the basis of the depth of

15 penetration, the depths of the craters which were measured on the site.

16 So we came to the conclusion that the main charge was used. It has a

17 72-millimetre initial velocity. And on that basis, with no charges, if

18 you fire at a range of 300 metres, the drop angle is 63 degrees. And if

19 you fire at a range of 400 metres, the initial angle has to be greater in

20 order to have a greater range. And then the drop angle - and I'm talking

21 about the drop angle - is 71 degrees.

22 JUDGE ORIE: 71 is the steeper angle, isn't it? Shouldn't you in

23 order to make a -- no, that's -- I'm afraid that I made a mistake. It's

24 good that you explained to me that for a longer distance, that you need --

25 for the longer distance -- let me just -- if this is 63, would that bring

Page 20580

1 a longer range than on 71? A steeper firing angle, would that produce a

2 shorter trajectory, as far as distance is concerned, or would it result in

3 a longer trajectory as far as distance is concerned?

4 I'll just ask you --

5 A. Your Honour, these are the drop angles. The drop angle is

6 greater, the greater the range is. So with the main charge you have a

7 drop angle -- if the firing angle is 45 --

8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the drop angle,

9 please.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat -- but perhaps I'll stop you

11 for one second. Could I please ask you --

12 A. The greatest range is obtained if you have a firing angle of 45

13 degrees.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just -- could you please look at this small

15 sketch. And before doing so, may I ask you that -- whether a higher

16 firing angle produces a higher drop angle or is there any misunderstanding

17 on my side?

18 A. Yes. Yes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Please explain to me --

20 A. Yes, a higher firing angle --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, produces a high drop --

22 A. -- Produces a high drop angle.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you now please look at this, without changing

24 it. I have tried to sketch approximately a 70 degree firing angle, and I

25 assumed that that would result also in a higher drop angle. And I have

Page 20581

1 done this same for a lower firing angle. And I have some difficulties in

2 understanding that with the higher angle you get the longer distance, the

3 longer trajectory. But perhaps I've taken the angles wrong or -- could

4 you explain why you come to the conclusion that a drop angle of 63 degrees

5 would correspond with a short trajectory and why a 60 per cent -- a 60

6 degrees drop angle would correspond with the longer distance. Could you

7 please -- could you please try to tell me what is wrong in my

8 understanding as it appears in this small sketch I made, because in the

9 small sketch the 70 degree, the steeper angle, produces a shorter

10 distance; whereas, in your report, it's just the opposite, isn't it?

11 A. Yes. Yes. You're right.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Please explain me what is wrong in my understanding,

13 or did you make a mistake here on the ...?

14 A. Unfortunately I don't have the firing table here, but I have to

15 say that if you have a higher angle, a higher firing angle, the ranges are

16 greater. When you drew this diagram, you assumed that the trajectories

17 were more or less the same, but there are greater differences. I have to

18 say that I can't answer your question precisely. I agree with you that

19 the drop angle is greater, that if you have a greater firing angle, the

20 drop angle is greater. But it seems that a smaller distance corresponds

21 to a greater drop angle and a greater distance to a smaller drop angle.

22 Obviously there is a mistake here. But in order to be 100 per cent

23 precise and to confirm this - I don't have a firing table here - and 71

24 and 63 are angles which according to this -- these graphic tables that I

25 have here, they would correspond to the main charge, to the basic charge.

Page 20582

1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The witness mentioned

2 that the peak of the trajectory is not being the same.

3 A. A greater drop angle corresponds to a smaller range. Your

4 conclusion is correct.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the conclusion in your report is not --

6 A. It's a mistake.


8 A. It's a mistake. These numbers were changed. Instead of 300

9 metres -- I can see 300 metres here in the tables. That would correspond

10 to an angle between 65 -- 60 and 65 degrees, and 470 metres would

11 correspond to --

12 JUDGE ORIE: I just want to see whether I understood your report

13 well, and I see that here perhaps the figures might have been

14 interchanged. It's not of great relevance at this very moment to see

15 exactly what it is.

16 May I ask your attention for the following part of your report.

17 May I take you to page 46. If I take you to page 46. Approximately in

18 the middle of the page you say, "If at the distance of about 100 metres

19 from this locality barracks of Muslim forces are situated, it is possible

20 that they were the target to weapons located in different positions at

21 different ranges from the barracks." What is the basis -- the factual

22 basis of this observation you make? You see, if at a distance of --

23 A. [In English] Yes. Yes. Yes.

24 JUDGE ORIE: What makes you take it for your opinion as relevant?

25 What is the source of Muslim forces' barracks at a distance of about 100

Page 20583

1 metres?

2 A. [Interpretation] We came to this conclusion because of the fact

3 that the firing between the first and second projectile, the interval was

4 between two and three minutes. And on the other hand, the magnitude of

5 the dispersion, if the same elements had been used to fire, the dispersion

6 would not have been as significant.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I'll stop you again and ask you again to listen

8 carefully to my question. My question was: On the basis of what did you

9 make an assumption here of the presence of barracks of Muslim forces at a

10 distance of about 100 metres? That's the only thing. Did someone tell

11 you? Did you read it somewhere? Are you personally aware of -- what is

12 the basis of knowledge of this fact?

13 A. Witness number 1, mentioned in the report on page 44, he said

14 that --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, just, if you say that you have --

16 A. We saw this in his statement and we mentioned this here.


18 A. Since statement number 1, the material that was provided to us by

19 the Defence, in the records that we were given which contained witness

20 statements, the witness Zahida Kadric stated this, and we linked this up.

21 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing I'm interested in: You say the source

22 is the statement of Mr. Kadric. That's what I'd like to know.

23 Then could I take you to page -- now, first of all, perhaps, I'll

24 take you to a question put by -- I think by Judge Nieto-Navia, who asked

25 you whether on the basis of methodology you would agree with Professor

Page 20584

1 Zecevic. And you explained that you did not agree, and one of the reasons

2 you gave is that Professor Zecevic would have said that 60 metres per

3 second would not be sufficient for a projectile to penetrate into the

4 ground. Do you remember that?

5 A. I said that Professor Zecevic said that 60 metres was a speed

6 which was sufficient for the ground to be penetrated.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have at least this to be -- this clarified,

8 because in the transcript it reads different. So you say because he said

9 that the penetration of, I think, 25 centimetres was possible at a speed

10 of 30 metres per second, you disagree with that and you would -- in your

11 opinion, you would require a higher speed.

12 A. Yes. Yes.


14 A. He said that it was 60 metres, give or take 10 metres.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 10 per cent, or 10 metres. Apart from that, is

16 there any other -- because this is perhaps not a methodological difference

17 between you and Professor Zecevic but, rather, the tables or the

18 coefficients you used that distinguishes your opinions. Is there any

19 fundamental difference of view in respect of speed of arrival of the

20 projectile compensating the back-pushing power of the detonation and then

21 remaining sufficient speed to embed into the ground? I see quite some

22 similarity in your methodology and the methodology of Professor Zecevic,

23 apart from the difference in outcome. Is this perception correct?

24 A. Your Honour, we stated that the most complete analysis in

25 technical terms was carried out for the Markale case, and Professor

Page 20585

1 Zecevic participated in this. This was the report on the massacre at the

2 Markale market.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Vilicic, I'm just asking you whether the

4 basics of your methodology, if you compare it with the one of Dr. Zecevic,

5 whether the basis of your methodology is the same.

6 A. On the whole, yes. But not with regard to all issues.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that. There are differences.

8 That also explains why you come to different conclusions.

9 My next question is: You made a calculation of the Markale

10 market -- but perhaps I would -- I have three more questions for you.

11 Perhaps I'll leave them for after the break, because tapes -- we are

12 running out of tapes and we'll not be able to finish in two or three

13 minutes.

14 We'll adjourn until 6.30.

15 --- Recess taken at 6.11 p.m.

16 --- On resuming at 6.34 p.m.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into

18 the courtroom.

19 Mr. Vilicic, may I take you to page 53 of your report, English

20 version. You are writing, "If the expression for theta C is used to

21 calculate elliptical impressions ..." Have you found that part? Could

22 you explain to me what these four lines exactly are about, because my

23 problem in understanding is the following: You say "if the expression for

24 theta C is used to calculate elliptical impressions on the ground --" I

25 take it on the ground, "recorded at Markale market after explosion of

Page 20586












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 20587

1 calibre 120-millimetre mortar shell." And then you say, "A is 56, B is

2 26, and theta C is 41 degrees." What I do not understand is you say that

3 you are calculating something where theta C is known or unknown, it's not

4 quite clear, whereas theta C is given as 41 degrees, and then you say for

5 the first increment charge theta C is 65 and for the sixth increment

6 charge theta C is 56. I have some difficulties in understanding what

7 exactly you are calculating on the basis of what? Or is it your view that

8 it's not well written down in English and could therefore create

9 confusion?

10 A. If -- just a moment. Let me have a look. What I mean is that is

11 true, yes, considering the drop angle. To determine a drop angle, you

12 take the starting point as being that with the first increment, if the

13 shell landed by calculations that there was an angle of 41 degrees, it

14 would be consistent with the projectile fired with the first increment

15 charge and then with the sixth increment charge, because as you know, the

16 size of the image -- of the impression would depend on the drop angle if

17 it went down with the first increment charge, then the coordinates of

18 the elliptical form 56 and 26, that would correspond to the 41 degree

19 angle. And if it was fired with a sixth increment charge, then these

20 coordinates, 56 and 26, would be corresponding to a drop angle of 62.5

21 degrees.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Should I then read these lines as follows, that

23 if you want to deduce from the elliptical impressions on the ground

24 recorded at Markale market after explosion of a calibre 120-millimetre

25 mortar shell which gives A as 56 and B as 26, that on a first increment,

Page 20588

1 that would mean that the drop angle would have been 41 degrees and that

2 for the first increment charge it would be 62 degrees and for the sixth

3 increment charge --

4 A. Half.

5 JUDGE ORIE: -- It would be 55.6? Is that the right

6 understanding?

7 A. Yes. Yes, yes, that's correct. Just like what you said.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you now explain that if the increment charges

9 are increasing, if I do understand you correctly -- although, in your

10 testimony you just said that 41 degrees corresponded with the first

11 increment charge; is that correct?

12 A. That I said it was 41 degrees is corresponding to the first

13 increment charge? I don't think so. I don't think that's what I said.

14 The first increment charge is corresponding to the angle of 62.5 degrees,

15 while the sixth increment charge would be of a lower angle.

16 JUDGE ORIE: What you said is --

17 A. It's a mistake.

18 JUDGE ORIE: That's a mistake. Could you then please --

19 A. Yes, I can see that now. The first increment charge for the

20 impression with values 56 and 26, the semi-axis of the elliptical form,

21 and the frontal swathe of the shell dispersion, the first increment charge

22 is corresponding to the 62.5 degrees, and the sixth increment would be

23 corresponding to 55.6 degrees. That's what should be in the text.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I now better understand. And you made most of

25 your calculations on the basis of 55.6 degree drop angle; is that

Page 20589

1 correct? Very often you used this figure of 55.6, which also corresponds

2 with your -- yes. Then --

3 A. Yes. That is the drop angle which corresponds to the longest

4 range and to the highest impact velocity for the lower category of

5 angles. 86.2 degrees, that is the maximum range of -- or maximum category

6 of angles. These are the two values, corresponding.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm sorry, I could not follow. Where is the

9 mistake? Because you repeated the same figures.

10 A. No. The mistake was that it was written that I said for the first

11 increment charge the angle was 41 degrees.

12 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: The mistake is in the transcript, not in your

13 report.

14 A. If you please. Pay attention to the figure 313. Theta 1 is the

15 angle that is formed by the triangle OCB. That is theta 1 angle. Theta 1

16 is --

17 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I understand. In the transcript, not to your

18 report.

19 A. Yes. Yes. Yes. Theta 1 is 41 degrees. That corresponds to

20 theta 1. That is corresponding to the triangle, the axis of the

21 projectile that forms the triangle with the back part. That is OCB

22 triangle.

23 JUDGE ORIE: So what you did, as a matter of fact, is you

24 mentioned theta C to be 41 degrees where you intended to say that it was

25 theta 1.

Page 20590

1 A. Theta 1 is 41 degrees. And for theta 1 being 41 degrees, that's

2 what you get the angle of being 62.5, that is 55.6 degrees.

3 JUDGE ORIE: No. Because the report says "theta C, 41." So

4 that's a mistake in the report.

5 Let me just see whether I have -- yes. I have --

6 A. Theta 1? I'm sorry, theta 1, it says also in the report, it says

7 theta 1.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But on your -- in the middle of the line I just

9 read to you, that says theta C.

10 A. You can have a look.

11 [In English] Oh, yes. Mistakes. Serbian, Serbian.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That happens.

13 Yes. You made a calculation for the hit probability for the

14 Markale market and you said that the dimension of the target was 36 by 30

15 metres. Am I right in understanding that you limited your calculation to

16 the marketplace itself without the adjacent street to be included, so not

17 the whole open area but just a limited part of it? If you look at page 48

18 of your report, I find an open space which seems to be measured as 41

19 metres by 35 metres, page 48. And now, I do include the street as part of

20 an open space. Is my understanding correct that -- I do not know exactly

21 what figures you used, because 36 by 30 does not appear.

22 A. [Interpretation] The distance from this building, which is 3.65

23 metres tall, up to the street in Markale, the distance is 30 metres from

24 that point. And the width of the street was taken to be roughly 5

25 metres. That's why it says "35 metres" here. We didn't have the exact

Page 20591

1 dimensions for this area. So for an area of 30 times 35 -- 30 by 35, we

2 assumed that there was one person on each square metre, in other words,

3 that there were 1.152 persons.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the -- how people would be hit by the --

5 the total area, do you agree with me that the total area --

6 A. Yes, in that --

7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... would be

8 approximately one-third, if you express it in the surface?

9 A. Yes. If we had used the dimensions provided on the sketch, the

10 area would be even greater and there would have been even more people in

11 that area, in other words.

12 JUDGE ORIE: A greater area, would that mean easier to hit and

13 more people there as potential people to be injured or ...?

14 A. Yes. If we take the figure 40 by 30, there would have been 1.200

15 people. We took the dimensions 30 by 35, and that was 1152 people. We

16 eliminated a surface of 250 square centimetres, so there were no obstacles

17 that would have protected those people who were there in Markale, those

18 metal stalls, we eliminated that in order to obtain the maximum number of

19 people hit.

20 Secondly, we didn't take into consideration the fact that when one

21 person is hit by a fragment, energy is lost and the person in the vicinity

22 is not wounded or is only lightly wounded. We assumed that the fragment

23 did not encounter any kind of resistance, in other words, that the

24 resistance -- we assumed that the resistance provided by the people who

25 were there was zero. The fragments were assumed to be able to continue

Page 20592

1 their trajectory without encountering obstacles of any kind.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And of course a resistance of zero is

3 unrealistic. In fact, it is presumed to have been higher?

4 A. No, it's impossible. Because the lethal energy is 100 jules.

5 So any fragment that hits someone with such energy it loses energy when

6 inflicting a wound as I said.

7 JUDGE ORIE: These are my questions for you, Professor Vilicic.

8 Are there any questions arising from the questions of the Judges?

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I don't

10 know if the Prosecution also has questions to put.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I am aware that the Chamber took a lot of

12 time. Nevertheless, I would like the parties to try to be as concise as

13 possible. And I'm inviting you as well, Professor Vilicic, to give as

14 precise answers as possible.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Willingly. We'll just follow

16 your example, Mr. President.

17 Further examination by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:

18 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, in regards to a question put to you by

19 Judge El Mahdi, you spoke about two types of mortars -- mortar shells,

20 120-millimetre light mortar and 120-millimetre heavy mortar. Could you

21 briefly tell us what the difference is between the two types of these

22 mortar shells is. And secondly, if I have understood you correctly, could

23 you tell us why it is not possible to confuse these two types in relation

24 to the Markale incident or in relation to the other incidents?

25 A. Well, there can be no confusion in our analysis because we took

Page 20593

1 the least favourable mortar. A light mortar has an initial velocity of

2 322 metres.

3 Q. Professor, I'll stop you there. But what's the difference between

4 a heavy 120-millimetre mortar and a light 120-millimetre mortar? The

5 Defence is not quite clear about this?

6 A. Well, the only difference is in the total mass of those mortars.

7 Q. Thank you. Please carry on.

8 A. Well, I said that 120-millimetre M-75 mortar was the most modern

9 mortar type and it can fire with a greater charge, it can have a greater

10 weight, and then the shell can have a greater initial speed when fired.

11 Its initial speed is 322 metres, whereas an M-38 mortar can't -- it can't

12 be fired from because there are certain obstacles with regard to the

13 maximum pressure that the barrel of the mortar can put up with. So you

14 can only use a maximum of five charges for such mortars, and this includes

15 using new shells.

16 Q. I'm going to return to the subject of 120-millimetre assisted

17 mortars, what we call assisted mortars. You said that on the basis of the

18 stabiliser you could make a distinction. My question is as follows: In

19 what respects are these stabilisers different? How is it possible to

20 avoid confusing the two types of stabilisers?

21 A. Well, first of all, the appearance. These stabilisers with an

22 active reactive projectile, the stabiliser, when it comes out of the

23 barrel it opens its fins, so it has fins over the calibres. When the fins

24 open up, then the diameter of the fins is greater. There are four fins.

25 It has four fins, whereas, the other mortar has a fixed stabiliser and the

Page 20594

1 stabiliser is the same as that of the shell, 120 millimetres. But in this

2 case, it's different.

3 Q. Thank you, Professor. I'd like to take you back to what you

4 mentioned on page 42 of your report. I'm talking about the English

5 version -- on page 52 of your report. Do you have this document in front

6 of you?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Could you have a look at fragment B, in the upper

9 part. Have you found that?

10 A. Yes. Yes, I have.

11 Q. And you wanted to say something in relation to the length of this

12 fragment and in relation to the thread, I think, but your answer wasn't

13 complete. What did you want to say at that point?

14 A. Well, I said that the body of a mortar shell has engraved grooves

15 for the fuse and the diameter is 2 millimetres. So if B has a

16 2-millimetre diameter, then the other fragments that you can see -- well,

17 you can see certain grooves -- these fragments don't correspond to this.

18 Q. Thank you. Witness, with regard to this matter, you said that

19 there was a mixture involved here. And I think that you added other

20 information. I think that you said something with regard to the origin

21 itself of these fragments. Could you please provide this additional

22 information. At the time, I was listening to the Serbian channel, that's

23 why I'm drawing your attention to this now.

24 A. I said that the fragments marked by the letter "B" at the top of

25 the figure and down below - and the Judge asked me about this - I said

Page 20595

1 that these fragments belonged to the same type of projectile, given the

2 grooves that you can see on them. If you want me to continue commenting

3 on this -- well, if this belongs to a projectile, but our conclusion was

4 that it isn't -- it wasn't part of one projectile, it didn't belong to one

5 projectile -- these are facts noted by the expert Higgs too. The colour

6 of the material is different. The two semicircular fragments were

7 designated as parts of the shell's reductor by the expert Higgs.

8 Q. Professor, you said that that didn't form part of one projectile.

9 I think that that's what I heard when listening to the Serbian booth. But

10 did you mean to say that it formed part -- that it belonged to several

11 projectiles?

12 A. Yes. When we came to this conclusion, we didn't have information

13 from UNPROFOR's report in which it is stated that the official

14 representative of BH, of Bosnia-Herzegovina, gave up the evidence on these

15 fragments. He didn't take this into consideration because he -- he

16 decided to say that they didn't belong to the same projectile.

17 Q. My last question, Professor: Since you said that these

18 photographs represented fragments which according to your testimony

19 belonged to several projectiles, what do you deduce from this

20 scientifically speaking?

21 A. Well, as I said, we came to the conclusion that in order to assert

22 that this belonged to one projectile, it would be necessary to carry out a

23 mechanical examination and it wasn't possible to do this because the

24 Defence team said that these samples weren't available. And after this

25 conclusion - that's why we didn't change it later on - Mr. Jamakovic

Page 20596

1 agreed. It's page 303, 8409 of the UNPROFOR report. Mr. Jamakovic agreed

2 to provide us with the fins taken from the crater and to provide the team

3 with shrapnel, which was apparently taken from the market. Since they

4 were not in a position to prove that it was really shrapnel from the 5th

5 of February explosion, they agreed that this would not be of much

6 assistance to them.

7 Q. Thank you, Professor.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have no further questions,

9 Mr. President.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, it is three minutes past 7.00. If you

11 would have a number of questions, we should adjourn until tomorrow. If

12 there would be only one, two, or three questions, then we could ask the

13 interpreters and the technicians whether we could finish today.

14 MR. STAMP: Three questions, three or four.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Three questions.

16 MR. STAMP: Or four.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Three or four.

18 MR. STAMP: Can I just proceed quickly?

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May --

20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

21 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, could we finish today as far as the

22 interpreters and the technicians are concerned? And of course the

23 registry also has to verify whether the transportation of -- are the

24 interpreters --

25 THE INTERPRETER: It's not a problem for the interpreters,

Page 20597

1 Mr. President.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you again for your great flexibility.

3 And if you proceed quickly, Mr. Stamp, and if you, Professor

4 Vilicic, give precise answers, then we might finish within a couple of

5 minutes.

6 Please proceed.

7 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much.

8 Further cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:

9 Q. You said in answer to a question by His Honour Judge Nieto-Navia

10 that all your calculations show that it is not possible for the stabiliser

11 fin to penetrate as far as Professor Zecevic saw it. And further in

12 answer to His Honour El Mahdi, you said "taking into account --" you said

13 that you did your analysis taking into account the layer of 2 centimetres

14 asphalt. I wish to suggest to you, sir, that --

15 A. [In English] No, no. I didn't say that we use in account 2

16 centimetres of asphalt.

17 Q. Very well. You were asked a question in relation to an upper

18 layer of concrete or asphalt and you took that into account. I would like

19 to suggest to you that if one applies the Berezansky formula, using the

20 same values that you used in the table that you presented entitled "Impact

21 velocity VP of the stabiliser of a mortar shell 120-millimetre for

22 penetration LP in various targets theta 0 equals 65.6 degrees," the

23 results obtained on a proper application of that formula to the values in

24 these tables would be different from the ones that you have presented to

25 the Court in these tables. Do you agree or do you disagree?

Page 20598

1 A. [Interpretation] I can't just agree with such a statement without

2 precise information.

3 Q. Very well. I suggest to you that if one applies the Berezansky

4 formula to the same values that you have in the first column, then the

5 penetration or the results in respect of the depth of penetration would

6 be higher than what you have presented to the Court. And I suggest to you

7 the same would be true if you applied the other formulas, the Panka

8 [phoen] formula and the Petry [phoen] formula, that all of them would

9 result in higher levels of penetration. Do you agree or disagree?

10 A. Which other methods? If computers are coming up with the wrong

11 results, then we came up with the wrong results too. You have the

12 calculators here which were done with a -- with a Mac, these are the

13 values obtained.

14 Q. Therefore, you disagree with my suggestion to you.

15 A. No, I don't agree that we had taken 2 centimetres of asphalt into

16 consideration, into account. I never say that. I said the asphalt could

17 be even harder than concrete.

18 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... is that you had misapplied

19 the Berezansky formula and the results presented in the table for depth of

20 penetration are not correct for the various impact velocities. Do you

21 disagree or agree? Please, yes or no.

22 A. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with you at all. That

23 would mean that we're not able to do mathematical calculations.

24 Q. Second question --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Fourth question, Mr. Stamp. As a matter of fact, I

Page 20599

1 do understand that perhaps from your common law background that you find

2 this do you agree, do you disagree absolutely necessary. It does not add

3 much to the testimony given until now. Please proceed.

4 MR. STAMP: Very well.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's really try to finish now.


7 Q. In respect to the same answers which you gave, I suggest to you

8 that in respect to the Markale incident, the mortar round exploded on

9 contact and therefore the tail fin did not penetrate the asphalt as the

10 explosion, the blast of the explosion, had created a 9-centimetre deep

11 crater before the stabiliser continued into the ground and therefore the

12 only surface to measure in respect to stabiliser penetration was the soil

13 beneath the asphalt.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Do you understand the question, Professor Vilicic?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm reading the transcript because

16 in the translation some surface that was penetrated was mentioned. That

17 doesn't appear anywhere. That has to do with the surface of the diameter

18 of the projectile, according to the Berezansky formula, cross-section.

19 [In English] It is written that only surface to measure in respect

20 to stabiliser penetration was the soil beneath the asphalt. Maybe it's

21 material in question you'd like to say, material in question after --


23 Q. Yes, yes, material in question after the surface has been blasted

24 away to create the crater. The material was soil.

25 A. [Interpretation] That the explosion would only have made a hole, a

Page 20600

1 crater, no. For there to be an explosion without the projectile to become

2 embedded, no, it couldn't create a 9-centimetre deep crater. That sort of

3 a crater can be made been an explosive device but not by a projectile.

4 Q. And lastly, in answer to a question from the President of the

5 Chamber, you said that your analysis was on the basis of the depth of

6 penetration, the depth of the crater's. And that is your analysis that

7 you have made in your report at section 2.4, and you have used the tables

8 7 and 8. I suggest to you that that entire section of your report and

9 those tables do not apply to fuses or to rounds with fuses set to impact

10 on contact. That is a modern impact fuses of super quick action which

11 are tested to activate before they penetrate 24.5 millimetres. It relates

12 to slower fuses, and therefore all your conclusions in respect to impact

13 velocity, drop angles, range, which precedes from section 2.4, do not

14 apply to faster impact fuses.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The question doesn't seem to

17 arise from the questions put to the witness by the Trial Chamber.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether it greatly assists or not. But

19 Professor Vilicic, could you just say whether you would agree or if you

20 would not agree with what just has been suggested to you by Mr. Stamp.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't agree because the mechanics

22 would all come to nothing. Mechanics would all come to nothing in such a

23 case.

24 MR. STAMP: And to the Court, I have copies of all statements of

25 Derida Tadic [phoen] and if the Court so pleases we can show them to the

Page 20601

1 witness.

2 JUDGE ORIE: But as such, these statements are not in evidence.

3 And I think it's quite clear that the Defence has presented material that

4 was not in evidence, and the Chamber I think earlier has made clear that

5 an expert witness is not an instrument through which you introduce new

6 evidence that has not been subject to cross-examination by the other

7 party. So the Chamber as such --

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ORIE: No, the Chamber does not seek this evidence to be

10 produced.

11 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President. Although, may I just

12 indicate that what we would have sought to show is separate and apart from

13 the issue of whether she testified or not but what she said in her

14 statement and whether or not there would have been a basis for --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The --

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber does not alter its position in respect of

18 seeking access to this statement.

19 MR. STAMP: That will be all, Mr. President. Thank you very

20 much.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Professor Vilicic, it has been a couple of very

22 long days for you, and it's certainly asked the utmost of your

23 concentration. We thank you very much for having come to The Hague and to

24 testify in this court. It was not the first time that we saw you, so you

25 travelled several times, and that's -- of course the most important thing

Page 20602

1 is you answered the questions of both parties and the questions of the

2 Judges. You even now and then gave more than answers to the questions of

3 the parties and the Judges. We thank you very much for having come to

4 testify in this court, and we wish you a safe trip home again.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. It was an honour for me

6 to present our results, our analysis.

7 I'll only take a minute. You said that I would be able to address

8 you at the end.


10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That I would be able to say a few

11 things. Could I just say this: With regard to Mr. Stamp's claim that an

12 82-millimetre mortar shell, that its stabiliser never remains on the site,

13 I'd like to say that the calculations show and practice also bears this

14 out, that with a projectile that has 50 per cent of TNT and hexogen

15 substance, the ejection speed is 158 metres and if it just has TNT, it's

16 148 metres. So with the main charge, the stabiliser is always in the

17 vicinity of the point of impact of the projectile. Thank you, and I

18 apologise for taking up additional minutes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: This is a bit of a problem, Professor Vilicic,

20 because you as a matter of fact gave additional information without being

21 asked about it.

22 Mr. Stamp, is it really necessary to give you an opportunity to --

23 if you say no, I'll not do it. If you say no -- because it's an issue you

24 raised, and now unexpectedly the witness comes up. So if it's something

25 you'd like to deal with, then I think I should allow you to.

Page 20603

1 MR. STAMP: It is something I'd like to deal with.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Would you then do that extremely briefly.

3 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, I don't know if that could be dealt with

4 within half an hour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Not within half an hour. Then I would say that this

6 is --

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ORIE: You caused us a little problem, Professor Vilicic.

9 No, I do understand that you're a technical expert and --

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I'm sorry. But

11 yesterday such a categorical claim that we were not right --

12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... yes. The

13 matter is that yesterday we stopped that. Now you raised the issue again,

14 and therefore the Chamber considers that although we have not sought this,

15 that Mr. Stamp should be able to put additional questions. If -- are you

16 still available tomorrow early in the afternoon for, let's say, 15

17 minutes, 20 minutes?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, my plane is tomorrow morning

19 for Belgrade, 10.40 or 10.30 hours.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.

22 MR. STAMP: In which case I could be very short. I'll just put

23 the position to him and --

24 JUDGE ORIE: And then he may agree or not agree. Let's keep it to

25 that. Otherwise, another solution would be that we just say that this is

Page 20604

1 not evidence but a remark made by the witness, because we can't just

2 continue for -- if it just --

3 MR. STAMP: Quickly.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Put your position to the witness, then see whether

5 he agrees or disagrees so that it has been put from your side, and then --

6 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We will accept this,

8 Mr. President, hoping this will be of exemplary decision, thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: You are aware that the Chamber is not happy to choose

10 this path at this very moment, but to keep the witness for another day

11 would perhaps be too much.

12 Mr. Stamp.

13 Further cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:

14 Q. Witness, Professor, is it correct that the weapons -- that the

15 ejection of the stabiliser fin by Dr. Vukasinovic et al., is based on the

16 Duval formula, that is, the --

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The interpreter in the Serbian

18 booth did not hear the name of the expert.

19 MR. STAMP: All right.

20 Q. I suggest to you that the detachment velocity, that is, the

21 velocity that push back the 82-millimetre stabiliser by all standard

22 recognised tests is much faster than any possible approach speed of the

23 82-millimetre round.

24 A. Which shell? Whose shell? Whose manufacture shell would that

25 be? A Yugoslav shell has a steel stabiliser and weight of 400 grams. You

Page 20605

1 can make the calculation and find out that it is impossible for it to have

2 a velocity higher than the drop velocity.

3 JUDGE ORIE: No. The question was whether the detonation effect

4 of an exploding 82-millimetre mortar shell, detonation effect that would

5 push backwards the tail fin, would be such that the tail fin will always

6 be stopped and will never penetrate into the ground because its speed of

7 impact will be too low to overcome that detonation effect. Do you agree

8 with that or do you disagree with that?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree that the stabiliser of an

10 82-millimetre shell will not penetrate the surface, the ground. The only

11 question was whether the push-back velocity is higher than the drop

12 velocity. We are saying that it is not higher than the drop velocity of

13 the highest increments, third or fourth increment charges of an

14 82-millimetre shell, which is why the stabiliser remains close to the

15 impact site. At the football match you saw that the stabilisers were not

16 found because they were pushed back, they were rejected, because the

17 velocity of the projectile wasn't very high.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that --

19 MR. STAMP: Finally.



22 Q. I suggest to you that there are aluminium stabilisers for

23 the 82-millimetre weighing 0.165 [Realtime transcript read in error

24 "0.65"] grams and there are stabilisers weighing 0.45 grams. Are you

25 aware that there are aluminium stabilisers for the 82-millimetre mortar?

Page 20606

1 A. Yes, there are such things as aluminium stabilisers, and the

2 calculation I gave you was for an aluminium stabiliser. But not here.

3 Here in the text it's wrong, that it is only 0.61 grams and 0.45. No,

4 that's probably wrong. It's 0.61 pounds and 0.45 pounds, not grams.

5 Because that's 250 to 200 grams.

6 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that you do not have any --

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The metric system.

8 JUDGE ORIE: The witness said pounds, instead of grams.


10 Q. You have -- not below a gram, below a kilogramme.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you are far below a gram. And I think the

12 witness rectified that where you said 0.61 grams, that it should be 0.61

13 pounds, and that is still far under 1 kilogramme.

14 MR. STAMP: The figures are 0.165 kilogrammes and 0.450

15 kilogrammes for the steel stabiliser.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Would that be correct, Professor Vilicic? Same

17 figures but then kilogrammes rather than pounds?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The other way around.


20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The other way around. Your Honours,

21 if we're speak about the steel stabiliser, it can be 610 grams. And if

22 it's aluminium, 450 grams. Stabilisers that are heavier than 400 grams

23 regularly remain or, that is, they have such energy and such impulse that

24 with higher charges will remain at the site of the impact. If they are

25 less than 400 grams, it would fly back, you would never find it on the

Page 20607

1 site of the impact. That's why I've asked you whose shell. Yugoslav

2 shells have these stabilisers, heavier than 400 grams.

3 JUDGE ORIE: But I take it that the matter has been sufficiently

4 clarified. Is there any additional questions? No further questions.

5 Then Professor Vilicic, I'll make it very brief to you. I'll

6 repeat whatever I said ten minutes ago to you. I wish you a safe trip

7 home again.

8 We'll adjourn until tomorrow afternoon, quarter past 2.00 in the

9 same courtroom.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

11 at 7.29 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,

12 the 4th day of March, 2003, at 2.15 p.m.