Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 2507

 1                           Thursday, 1 May 2008 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.  Madam Registrar, would

 7     you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  This is case

 9     number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Mr. Anttila, I think we have to deal with a few procedural

12     matters so if you will have a bit of patience.

13             Mr. Mikulicic.

14             MR. MIKULICIC:  Yes.  Thank you, Your Honours.  I would just like

15     to suggest that Exhibit  D133, which was introduced into the private

16     session should be admitted under the seal.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

18             MR. MIKULICIC:  Thank you.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, is that on the record, that D133,

20     as the Chamber now decides, is admitted under seal.  Yes.  That's

21     confirmed.

22             If there's no other matter, good morning again, Mr. Anttila.

23                           WITNESS:  KARI ANTTILA

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Before you give evidence in this court the Rules of

25     Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you

Page 2508

 1     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  May I

 2     invite you to stand and to make that solemn declaration of which the text

 3     is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Thank you.  I solemnly declare that I will

 5     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Anttila.  Please be seated.

 7             English is not your native language.  If you have ever any

 8     problem either in understanding or in expressing yourself in that

 9     language, please address me.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes, okay.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, are you ready to --

12             MR. RUSSO:  I am, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

14             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

15                           Examination by Mr. Russo:

16        Q.   Mr. Anttila, could you please state your full name for the

17     record, please?

18        A.   My full name is Kari Juhami Anttila.

19        Q.   Thank you.  And do you recall giving four statements to the

20     Office of the Prosecutor in connection with this case?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honours, with your permission I'd like to

23     provide the witness with paper copies of his statements.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please do so.

25             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

Page 2509

 1        Q.   Mr. Anttila, taking a look at those, can you tell us whether

 2     those are the statements that you made to the ICTY?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  And to be clear, the statement of 18 December of

 5     1995, that is 65 ter 4774, the statement dated 8 January 1996, is 65 ter

 6     number 1052.  The statement dated 16 October 1997, is 65 ter number 4804,

 7     and the final statement dated 12 December 2007 is 65 ter number 4805.

 8             Now, Mr. Anttila, did you have a chance to review all of those

 9     statements prior to coming to court today?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And can you tell the Court whether the information contained in

12     each of those statements is true and accurate to the best of your

13     knowledge?

14        A.   That is a fact.

15        Q.   Thank you.  And do those statements, do each of them accurately

16     reflect what you said?

17        A.   To the best of my knowledge, yes.

18        Q.   And if asked the same questions here in court today, would your

19     answers be the same as in those statements?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, I would move for the admission of each

23     of these statements and I can repeat the 65 ter numbers if necessary.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Was that 1052?

25             MR. RUSSO:  That was the 8 January 1996 statement, Your Honour,

Page 2510

 1     yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and I may just -- but let's start with the

 3     first one.  I think we start with 4774.

 4             MR. RUSSO:  That's correct, and --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  18th of December 1995.

 6             MR. RUSSO:  If you'll recall that's the same statement as

 7     Mr. Munkelien.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, that's P60.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  That is already in evidence.

10             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Your Honour, I wasn't sure how the court would

11     prefer to proceed.  I thought it would be best to have this in addition

12     to since it is a statement of both of them but --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I think if the one is in evidence and if the witness

14     here now testifies that he would give the same answers and that the

15     statement is to the best of his knowledge in accordance with the truth,

16     then I think there's no need to have it admitted again.  So that P60 is

17     the 18th of December statement.

18             Let me just check one second.  Yes.

19             Then the next one would be P1052.  Any objections?

20             MR. KEHOE:  No objection, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And that's true for all the Defence teams.

22             Madam Registrar, that would be number?

23             THE REGISTRAR:  That would be Exhibit  P171, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  P171 is admitted into evidence.  The next one is

25     P4804.  Any objections?

Page 2511

 1             MR. KEHOE:  That is the October '07 -- excuse me, 1997.  No

 2     objection.  Obviously, Your Honour, my objection is with regard to

 3     admissibility and not to weight, but when I say no objection it's on the

 4     admissibility score.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the October 1997 statement would

 6     be?

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  That would be Exhibit  P172, Your Honours.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, if I could just correct it.  I mean I

 9     think -- I don't know if I misspoke.  I said my objection is not with

10     regard to admissibility, but I obviously the issue that I take -- to the

11     extent I take issue it's to weight, but I do believe that either I

12     misspoke or it was written incorrectly in the prior transcript at line 25

13     going into line 1.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You said my objection is with regard to

15     admissibility, not to weight, it was just the other way around.

16             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  P172, since there are no objections, is admitted

18     into evidence.

19             Then 4805.  That is the -- that is the 12th of December, 2007.

20     No objections?

21             MR. KEHOE:  No objection, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I take it you've spoken for all Defence teams,

23     Mr. Kehoe.

24             Madam Registrar.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that would be Exhibit  P173.

Page 2512

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And P173 is admitted into evidence.

 2             Mr. Russo, am I mistaken when I said that there was another

 3     statement as well but you do not tender that?

 4             MR. RUSSO:  You are not mistaken, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then please proceed.

 6             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours.  At this

 7     time I'd request permission to read a brief summary of the 92 ter

 8     statement.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Anttila is informed about the procedure

10     that -- Mr. Anttila, it's for the public to know what is in all these

11     statements that are admitted into evidence, that a brief summary will be

12     read.

13             Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

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

15             Mr. Anttila was a United Nations military observer assigned to

16     Team Podkonje in Sector South from 14 August until 27 November of 1995.

17     Mr. Anttila participated in assessing the damage in Knin caused by

18     shelling operations, burning and looting, and also performed a crater

19     analysis of six impacts from a 128-millimetre multiple barrel rocket

20     launcher system in a residential area of Knin.  Mr. Anttila sometimes

21     performed the functions of the duty or operations officer for the UNMO

22     teams and on occasion drafted UNMO sitreps either for his UNMO Team

23     Podkonje or for the UNMO HQ in Sector South.

24             In addition to his responsibilities as an UNMO, Mr. Anttila also

25     participated in patrols as part of the Human Rights Action Teams in

Page 2513

 1     Sector South.  He was also tasked to prepare summaries of the

 2     humanitarian violations reported by the UNMO teams in their daily sitreps

 3     and to create reports detailing the information collected during the

 4     comprehensive damage survey conducted by all UNMO teams in Sector South

 5     which recorded the number of houses destroyed or damaged in over 400

 6     villages in the Krajina.

 7             That concludes the summary, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

 9             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.  Madam Registrar, if we could please pull

10     up Exhibit  P64, please.

11        Q.   Mr. Anttila, looking at Exhibit  P64, can you tell me if you

12     recognise this document?

13        A.   Yes, I do.

14        Q.   Okay.  And did you participate in the damage assessment upon

15     which this report is based?

16        A.   I -- excuse me.  I participated on that one during that day, and

17     there were also other people who were taking part in that assessment.

18        Q.   And who were those other people?  Were they members of your UNMO

19     team?

20        A.   They were members of the UNMO Team Podkonje.

21        Q.   And can you explain how the assignment to conduct this damage

22     survey came about?

23        A.   Well, on that day we were -- for myself we were tasked to -- to

24     conduct the crater analysis on those rocket impacts in the -- in the

25     area, and while we were doing that we were going through the area,

Page 2514

 1     driving through the residential area and doing the assessment along the

 2     way.

 3        Q.   And can you please tell the Court where the -- the assignment

 4     came from to conduct that assessment?

 5        A.   That came from the SMO, the senior military observer of the

 6     sector.

 7        Q.   And did the senior military observer give you this assignment

 8     verbally or was it in writing?

 9        A.   In that case it was given verbally.

10        Q.   Okay.  And if you could please just briefly explain to the Court

11     exactly how the assessment was carried out by yourself as well as your

12     fellow UNMO team members.

13        A.   The assessment was carried out in a way that we left from the

14     sector headquarters.  We drove by car to the locations which each of the

15     teams were assigned to, and we were assigned to go to -- to that certain

16     residential area to collect the information about the impacts, and on the

17     way we did not go directly to that area.  We were going through the parts

18     of the town where there were residential buildings.  So -- so we -- we

19     went there directly without any hesitation and any waiting, but we went

20     through some areas where -- where things could be observed.

21        Q.   And how long did this damage assessment take on that day?

22        A.   For myself and for the part of tour, what we did was -- it was an

23     afternoon task so it took a few hours.

24        Q.   And do you know how long the other members of your UNMO team took

25     to conduct their portions of this damage assessment?

Page 2515

 1        A.   Well, they also had only that afternoon to -- to conduct the --

 2     the survey originally tasked to them.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             MR. RUSSO:  Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up -- I

 5     believe it is P62.  Thank you.  And if we could please just enlarge the

 6     sort of middle downtown section.  That's fine.  Thank you.

 7             And, Your Honours, if I could please ask for the assistance of

 8     the court usher.

 9        Q.   Mr. Anttila, could you please mark or circle the areas where UNMO

10     Team Podkonje searched for the damage on the afternoon of 17 August 1995.

11        A.   Okay.  Myself and Mr. Munkelien, we were around about that area.

12        Q.   Mm-hmm.

13        A.   And the other -- I think it was -- at the time it was three

14     different patrols who were going around this area in -- in general this

15     area, and about this area.

16        Q.   Thank you.  And if you could please just next to each one of

17     those circles mark the letters PA?

18        A.   PA.

19        Q.   PA.

20             MR. KEHOE:  If I -- just to making it clear, could we have a

21     different designation for the particular area that Mr. Anttila looked at,

22     so when we're looking at this down the line we have the other areas and

23     then the specific area that Mr. Munkelien and Mr. Anttila looked at.

24             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.  That's a good idea.

25        Q.   Why don't we please if you could mark the area where yourself and

Page 2516

 1     Mr. Munkelien searched as A, and mark the other areas where the other

 2     teams searched as B, C, and D.

 3        A.   [Marks]

 4        Q.   Thank you.  And --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, yes.  The B is not easily.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I know.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you make the B even better?  There's a way of

 8     removing what you've written.  Yes.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please make the B --

11             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

13             MR. RUSSO:

14        Q.   And at the time you conducted this damage survey what was your

15     understanding of what the military targets in the town were?

16        A.   The only military target that I was aware of was the north --

17     what we called north barracks in this area.

18        Q.   And if you could, please, place a circle around that area you're

19     talking about and mark that as E.

20        A.   [Marks]

21        Q.   And did the other members of Team Podkonje indicate to you or

22     consider during this provisional assessment any other locations in Knin

23     that they considered to be military targets?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   Okay.

Page 2517

 1             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, at this time I would move for admission

 2     of this marked photograph.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  No objection.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.  Madam Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that would be Exhibit  P174.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  P174 is admitted into evidence.  Please proceed.

 8             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.  And if we could just have one additional

 9     copy of P62 brought up.  And if we can also focus again on the same area.

10     And once again if we could just briefly have the assistance of the court

11     usher.

12        Q.   Mr. Anttila, you indicated that you performed a crater analysis

13     also on this day.  Can you please circle the location where yourself and

14     Mr. Munkelien performed that crater analysis.

15        A.   [Marks]

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, at this time I would move to have this

18     admitted as a separate exhibit.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

20             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, I guess I need some degree of clarity, Your

21     Honour, from the standpoint of is this different from what we had as A

22     the area where he searched.  It seems to me, and I may be mistaken, but

23     it looks like exactly same.

24             MR. RUSSO:

25        Q.   Is that correct, Mr. Anttila?

Page 2518

 1        A.   That's right.

 2        Q.   Did you search the same area?

 3        A.   That's correct.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  So I have --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  If the witness says the area he marked A, although

 7     is this the same size?  Is it larger or is it smaller.  I would have to

 8     compare.

 9             THE WITNESS:  That would be my hand.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, we're talking about a crater which is of

11     the size of perhaps one or two metres.  Then of course we have a few

12     streets here so it doesn't add anything.  It was within the area given

13     the letter A in the previous exhibit.  Therefore, Mr. Russo, does it add

14     anything?

15             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, no, it doesn't add anything.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I think it's of no great use to have this

17     admitted into evidence.  Please proceed.

18             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it that you withdraw tendering it.

20             MR. RUSSO:  That's correct, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please proceed.

22             MR. RUSSO:  We no long are require the assistance the court

23     usher.

24        Q.   And just to confirm, Mr. Anttila, as the Court indicated, the

25     area that you marked as A in the last exhibit, that is also the area

Page 2519

 1     where you conducted the crater analysis; is that correct?

 2        A.   That's correct.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Now, going back to the provisional assessment, was

 4     there any record made during that assessment of -- other than the crater

 5     analysis which you just mentioned, was there any record made of the exact

 6     locations of every shell impact that was found on the afternoon of 17

 7     August 1995?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   And to whom did Team Podkonje report the findings of that

10     provisional assessment on that afternoon?

11        A.   We reported all the findings directly to the SMO.

12        Q.   And was that at a briefing?  Was it in a report?  How did you do

13     that?

14        A.   Basically it was in the briefing after the afternoon patrols had

15     come back.

16        Q.   And how did you indicate to the senior military observer the

17     areas where you found the damage?

18        A.   We were indicating them by pointing them out on the map in the

19     room.

20        Q.   I'm sorry, is there -- was there map in an office or --

21        A.   Or -- okay.  That was the operations office of the UNMO

22     headquarter Sector South, and there was of course a map of the area on

23     the -- on the wall.  So these -- these areas that were covered were

24     indicated on the map.

25        Q.   And did you do that simply by pointing to the areas?

Page 2520

 1        A.   More or less, yes.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And did the UNMOs during this afternoon search of

 3     Knin, did they collect any information on the damage done to the military

 4     targets themselves?

 5        A.   Well, we were not allowed to enter the north barracks, so we

 6     could not assess any damages inside that area, and ...

 7             MR. RUSSO:  Now, if we could please, Madam Registrar, bring P64

 8     up again.  And if we could turn, please, to the second page and focus on

 9     paragraph 7.

10        Q.   Mr. Anttila, looking at paragraph 7, if you can see where it

11     indicates that:  "The survey continues to get a more accurate picture and

12     better assessment.  Detailed report to follow within a week."

13             To your knowledge was there a detailed report that followed

14     within one week?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   And referring to your statement of 8 January 1996 you indicate

17     that you found more areas where shells had landed and it was obvious from

18     these later observations that the shelling did not concentrate on

19     military targets --

20             MR. KEHOE:  I object to leading, Your Honour.

21             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, I'm simply directing him to the portion

22     of his statement where this information is contained.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  If you then perhaps point to the paragraph.

24             MR. RUSSO:  That would be paragraph 3 of the 8 January 1996

25     statement, which is now Exhibit  P171.

Page 2521

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  If you can ask the witness to read for himself the

 2     paragraph first and then put questions to him.

 3             MR. RUSSO:

 4        Q.   Mr. Anttila, referring -- if you could look at paragraph 3 of

 5     your 8 January 1996 statement.

 6        A.   Mm-hmm.  Yeah.

 7        Q.   The first sentence of that statement where it says that it was

 8     possible to find out more locations where artillery and mortar shells and

 9     rockets had landed, does that mean that you found more damage than was

10     originally reported in the provisional assessment?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And can you tell the Court whether or not some of that damage was

13     located in the same areas where Team Podkonje searched on the 17th of

14     August?

15        A.   Definitely, yes.

16        Q.   And was some of that damage found in areas which were not in the

17     close vicinity of military targets?

18        A.   Well, these findings were found out in areas which I just pointed

19     out, which were in a way driven through during the provisional

20     assessment, and then later on when the debris and everything was cleared

21     out you could find out impacts of -- of shelling later on.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, you are aware that your question suggests

23     a common understanding of the military targets, where they were.

24             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Your Honour, and --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  So I take it then is this limited to what the

Page 2522

 1     witness said before, northern barracks or --

 2             MR. RUSSO:  If I could clarify that for a moment.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do so.

 4             MR. RUSSO:

 5        Q.   And looking at your 8 January 1996 statement, again at paragraph

 6     3, Mr. Anttila, where it says:  "Craters could be found clearly in

 7     residential areas and also in first assessment factories, et cetera, were

 8     considered military objectives.  This cannot be confirmed afterwards."

 9     Earlier you indicated that the only military target which was considered

10     at the time was the northern barracks.

11        A.   Mm-hmm.

12        Q.   This makes reference to factories, et cetera.  Can you tell me,

13     were there additional facilities other than the northern barracks which

14     were considered military objectives for purposes of the provisional

15     assessment itself?

16        A.   Okay.  Having been in the area for just a couple of days, not

17     everything was clear when we were making the provisional assessment.

18     Later on those few production facilities within the area of downtown Knin

19     were sometimes referred as military compounds or whatever, and then later

20     on we had discussions about whether they were of that nature and -- and

21     anyway, the point is that with the crater I'm -- I was referring to the

22     crater analysis conducted on the 17th of August while writing this down,

23     and that at that time the closest military objective was the north

24     barracks, and no matter which of those later may be considered to -- to

25     be military objectives, they would not be any closer than the north

Page 2523

 1     barracks to the area where the rocket impacts had landed.

 2             MR. RUSSO:  Madam Registrar, if we could please again pull up the

 3     aerial photograph P62.

 4        Q.   Mr. Anttila, looking again at the aerial photograph of Knin.

 5     You've already indicated where the northern barracks was.  I'd like you

 6     to please indicate where the factories, et cetera, that you reference in

 7     your 8 January 1996 statement.

 8        A.   [Marks]

 9        Q.   And were there any other facilities that you indicated that you

10     had discussions with your fellow UNMO team members that they thought were

11     military targets at the time?

12        A.   Yes.  Sorry.  So anyway, the case is the area of this.

13        Q.   And so these two facilities, in addition to the northern

14     barracks, were there any other facilities considered by UNMO Team

15     Podkonje to have been military targets in Knin?

16             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  I would object.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

18             MR. KEHOE:  I would object to the comment about what Team

19     Podkonje thought was military targets, because as you see from the

20     provisional assessment, it was written by the SMO with quite a different

21     tilt.  Now, if what the witness wants to talk about he considered to be

22     military targets, that's a different subject.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's how I understood your testimony.  When

24     you're talking about military targets, you're -- as a matter of fact, as

25     the witness explained were the potential military targets he discussed

Page 2524

 1     with his colleagues as -- that's well understood.

 2             Then please proceed.

 3             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.  If we could have this exhibit, please,

 4     marked as a separate exhibit.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, we had the -- I think the first -- let me

 6     just check.  The first marking was about the factories, isn't it?  Could

 7     you please put an F to the first circle you put there, and an M for the

 8     other one, which is what you --

 9             THE WITNESS:  Which is a compound of -- okay.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you considered it possibly --

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes, we were discussing about this.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And then you were discussing about this as a

13     military target.

14             THE WITNESS:  Whether it was a military target or not.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's understood.

16             Then you want to tender that into evidence.

17             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, please, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?  No objections.

19             Madam Registrar.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that would be Exhibit  P175.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Exhibit P175 is admitted into evidence.

22             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, madam court usher.  I think we're done.

23        Q.   Mr. Anttila, other than the locations which you've indicated on

24     this map and on the previous map as military targets, in your subsequent

25     patrols through Knin did you find shelling impacts in areas not close to

Page 2525

 1     any of those areas?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And can you tell the Court whether or not you found more than

 4     five impacts in those areas not close to any of the military targets

 5     you've indicated?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And was the senior military observer made aware of the fact that

 8     you found additional damage in areas not close to these military targets?

 9        A.   Yes, he was.

10        Q.   And was there any discussion amongst your team regarding the

11     accuracy of the provisional assessment?

12        A.   Yes, there was, so to say, in front of him and also when he was

13     not present with the discussions.

14        Q.   And to your knowledge did the senior military observer ever

15     produce a follow-up report indicating that the provisional assessment

16     report was subsequently found to be inaccurate?

17        A.   In terms of saying that the provisional assessment was inaccurate

18     in terms of being too low or -- or anything like that, I don't know

19     anything about that kind of report, but the fact is that based on these

20     first findings we were tasked to make the survey on the whole sector, and

21     that led into the reports that have been taken into evidence later on.

22        Q.   And along with what you've just mentioned, if --

23             MR. RUSSO:  Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up Exhibit

24     P63.

25        Q.   Mr. Anttila, taking a look at Exhibit P63, can you tell me if

Page 2526

 1     this is what you just made reference to?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And if you can recall when exactly it was that this document was

 4     drafted.  Was it given to you before you conducted the provisional

 5     assessment or sometime afterwards?

 6        A.   Well, you can see on the date and group on the top that we were

 7     probably out doing the actual crater analysis when it was sent out.  So

 8     this was done the same day but after provisional assessment teams were

 9     sent out, and that's simultaneous action that was taken by SMO, and this

10     was sent to other teams within the AOR, and at that time the Podkonje

11     or -- or the people in Knin were out already conducting the surveys.

12        Q.   And can you recall when the first report based on this

13     instruction was produced?

14        A.   The first reports based on this order were produced after it was

15     given out in two or three days' time.  So the provisional assessment was

16     not based on this order.

17             MR. RUSSO:  Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up Exhibit

18     P98.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, could -- could I ask some clarification

20     from the witness.

21             Mr. Anttila.

22             THE WITNESS:  Yes?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  You said earlier that the area where you found the

24     shell impact was not any closer to any of the objectives, possible

25     military objectives you identified later, than they were to the northern

Page 2527

 1     barracks.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hmm.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, I have great difficulties in understanding this

 4     in relation to your last marking, and I'm not talking about the F marking

 5     but about the M marking.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Marking.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Which if I compare that with the area where you

 8     found the shell impact seems to me if not closer than at JordBat's not

 9     further away from the northern barracks.

10             THE WITNESS:  The thing is that --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, I have difficulties to reconcile these

12     two elements of your testimony.

13             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  I -- I, too, have that problem, because we

14     were discussing this area being possible military target.  I had not been

15     there before Operation Storm, and to my -- to the best of my knowledge

16     that area during the time that I spent there was in no way -- the marking

17     M was in no way a military area.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  And -- okay.  Like I -- like I said, we had

20     discussion about that --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             THE WITNESS:  -- and --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Now I understand.  Those objectives that you

24     discussed to be possibly military targets were not included in your

25     answer when you said that it was not closer to the northern barracks.

Page 2528

 1             THE WITNESS:  Exactly.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.  Please proceed.

 3             MR. RUSSO:

 4        Q.   Mr. Anttila, do you recognise this exhibit, P98?

 5        A.   Yep, I do.

 6        Q.   And is -- was this report prepared pursuant to the instruction

 7     that you just saw on the screen?

 8        A.   Yes.  This is what came out.

 9        Q.   And can you tell the Court who prepared this report?

10        A.   I prepared this report with the numbers, can the columns, with

11     the lines, but the information came from the different UNMO teams within

12     the sector.

13        Q.   Okay.  Before we get to the basis for this report and where you

14     received the information from, I want to first focus on the amount of

15     damage which was reported in Knin.

16             MR. RUSSO:  Madam Registrar, if we could please turn to the third

17     page and focus on the first three entries where it's indicated on the

18     left-hand side "Podkonje."  And if we could move that over just a bit to

19     get the numbers.  A little bit more.  A little bit more.  Actually, I

20     think we'll have to move out a bit so we can capture both the areas and

21     the numbers.

22        Q.   And if you can follow along with me, Mr. Anttila.  It indicates

23     here that in Knin north-east, 41 houses totally damaged, 261 houses

24     partially damaged.  In Knin north-west 6 totally damaged, 94 partially

25     damaged, and in Knin south-west 22 totally damaged, 236 partially

Page 2529

 1     damaged.

 2             And I'm going to hope my calculations are correct, I'm sure Your

 3     Honours would correct me if they're not, that would equal a total of 69

 4     houses totally damaged and 591 houses partially damaged.

 5        A.   Mm-hmm.

 6        Q.   Making for total overall of 660 houses totally or partially

 7     damaged.

 8             Now, out of those 660 houses can you tell the Court an

 9     approximate percentage based on your observations of how many of those

10     houses were damaged by shelling?

11        A.   It's very hard to say, but it's -- maybe I would say percentage

12     maybe about 40 -- maybe 40 per cent of the houses were damaged due to

13     shelling.

14        Q.   Thank you.  And now getting back to this damage survey report and

15     what it's actually based on, can you explain to the Court where the

16     information that you entered onto this spreadsheet came from?

17        A.   This information, all of it, came from different UNMO teams which

18     conducted patrols within their AOR to -- to survey what was the damage

19     done in the area.  In certain areas where the UNMO team was placed on the

20     Croatian side prior to Operation Storm you can see that there are damages

21     reported that were assessed to be during the war or the fighting while --

22     while the so-called Krajina area was established, and the rest of it

23     is -- is based on the information that came out from the teams based on

24     the order to survey the area.

25        Q.   Thank you.  And how exactly did the UNMO teams convey this

Page 2530

 1     information to you?

 2        A.   It was conveyed -- basically the aim was to convey my daily

 3     sitreps and their special information packages that they gave in when

 4     they came for the team leaders meeting or something like that, when they

 5     arrived at the -- at the headquarters.  So it was not released via

 6     electronical means in that way.  It was physically taken into the

 7     headquarters with the paper sheets and stuff like that.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  And to be clear, is -- did the information which was

 9     entered into this report by you, did that only come from UNMO team

10     sitreps?

11        A.   It did not come only from UNMO sitreps.  Like I said, it was

12     hand-delivered or by other means, also electrical -- electrical with the

13     floppy disk and things like that delivered to the -- to the headquarters

14     and then compiled there by myself.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             MR. RUSSO:  Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up Exhibit

17     P65.

18        Q.   Mr. Anttila, looking at Exhibit P65, can you tell us whether or

19     not some of the UNMO teams used a form like this to convey the

20     information to you?

21        A.   This is a form that was presented out to -- to be the basis on

22     the information that should be delivered to -- to the headquarters about

23     the different areas of where the damage was assessed.  This particular

24     report is just an example.

25        Q.   And did the UNMO teams on occasion use other means of

Page 2531

 1     communicating the information, any other kinds of reports or compilations

 2     of information?

 3        A.   Basically, yes.  They did use different means by telling that,

 4     for example, compared to this report they would say that -- in their

 5     sitrep that row A such-and-such village, row B grid and then so on.  So

 6     they could use this format even when reporting with their sitreps.

 7        Q.   And looking at this particular data collection form, you provided

 8     this to the OTP; right?

 9        A.   This was provided by Sector South UNMO headquarters to the teams.

10        Q.   I mean, you gave it to our office.  Isn't that right?

11        A.   That's right, yes.

12        Q.   And with regard to the information which entered on this

13     particular form, can you explain why some of the villages which appear at

14     the top in the "Comments" field in row A, can you explain why some of

15     these villages don't actually appear in the survey report which we look

16     at earlier?

17        A.   Okay.  Then -- then we are talking general area of Plavno, which

18     is something that you can find on the map.  Then you have different

19     hamlets there which are Jovici, Stojakovici, and et cetera, which later

20     on were compiled within a certain area, and a team had to make an

21     assessment and a definition on which hamlets would be put under one name.

22        Q.   Are you indicating that some of the hamlet names which appear --

23             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  At this point I just object

24     to the leading.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe -- Mr. Russo, would you to the best of

Page 2532

 1     your abilities refrain from leading.  I don't know whether to what extent

 2     you were leading already, but if you rephrase your question certainly in

 3     a non-leading way, then please proceed.

 4             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5        Q.   Can you please explain what you said just a second ago about the

 6     selection of areas to be reported?  I'm not sure I understand that.

 7        A.   Okay.  Okay.  You -- okay.  It says -- in this particular report

 8     it says village name Plavno, and Plavno is an area where you have

 9     different groups of houses which in -- which are included in "Comments"

10     column where it says:  "Including Jovici," and et cetera.  This is the

11     general area of Plavno, and this is just information to record that we

12     are talking about the hamlets of Jovici, Bajinac, Torbice, Grmuse,

13     Stojakovici, et cetera, to have information that there might be some

14     other hamlets that have not been visited yet.

15             So just as well as the grid reference is a pretty rough one, that

16     was at the time a way to keep track of which places were visited and

17     which not.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  May I ask you then a question.  "Et cetera" gives

19     the possibility to identify [Overlapping speakers] --

20             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Okay.  In this particular case these hamlets

21     mentioned on the exhibit were visited and there could be some other

22     hamlets in the general area of Plavno were not visited on that patrol.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but you didn't know which ones.

24             THE WITNESS:  We don't know which ones.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

Page 2533

 1             MR. RUSSO:

 2        Q.   And getting back to the actual report, the spreadsheet that we

 3     looked at earlier, how many versions of that report did you prepare?

 4        A.   Well, it was updated.  After it was created it was updated daily,

 5     on daily basis.  Official reports that went out into UN archive, I think

 6     there were three versions of that.

 7        Q.   And were the subsequent versions, in your opinion, more accurate

 8     than the previous versions?

 9        A.   That's the point of all -- all this work, that while the work

10     proceeded the information was more accurate in terms of more villages

11     being visited, more areas being covered and so on.

12        Q.   And to your knowledge did the UNMO teams ever go back to a

13     village that they had originally checked and recheck it?

14        A.   Yes, they did.

15        Q.   Okay.  Did you ever ask any of them to go back and clarify some

16     of the information that they gave to you?

17        A.   The information was constantly updated so that in a certain area

18     the first visit would give out a certain report, and later on when the

19     team would visit the same area again they would recheck the information

20     that they gave out the first time, and if there was any change that

21     change would be reported and then it would appear on the final report

22     compiled by myself.

23        Q.   Looking at the -- the data collection form here, receiving a form

24     like this where it indicates several villages -- or several hamlets

25     inside of a general area and saying "et cetera," is that a level of

Page 2534

 1     specificity with which you were satisfied?

 2        A.   No.  This is a -- this is a preliminary report that -- in this

 3     particular case I recall that we gave the -- the team the order to be

 4     more specific on the hamlets that they have included in the -- in the

 5     report and so on.  So later on that's why in the final version you cannot

 6     find all of these names, for example.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             MR. RUSSO:  Madam Registrar, if we could please pull up 65 ter

 9     1587.  If we could please turn to the second page of that report.

10        Q.   Mr. Anttila, looking here at 65 ter number 1587, the date appears

11     as 4/11/1995.  Can you tell the Court whether or not this was the final

12     report that you prepared?

13        A.   That is the last version that was submitted into a UN system as a

14     report.

15             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, at this time I would move for the

16     admission of 65 ter 1587.

17             MR. KEHOE:  No objection.  No objection.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Madam Registrar.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that would be Exhibit  P176.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  P176 is admitted into evidence.  Please proceed.

21             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Your Honours.

22             If, Madam Registrar, we could now pull up Exhibit  P68.

23        Q.   Mr. Anttila, looking at Exhibit P68, can you tell me if you

24     recognise that document?

25        A.   This is a -- yes, I do.

Page 2535

 1        Q.   Can you tell the Court, please, who prepared this document.

 2        A.   This document was prepared by myself based on the daily sitreps

 3     coming from the teams to the Sector South UNMO headquarters.

 4        Q.   And can you explain to the Court why this summary does not

 5     contain all of the information about the houses burned in the survey that

 6     we just looked at?

 7        A.   Well, this -- this is -- like I said, it's based on the daily

 8     sitreps.  So this information is compiled from the information that was

 9     observed by the UNMO teams when they were on patrol.  So if there was a

10     house burning somewhere in the area, maybe the UNMOs were not present at

11     that location at that time.  So that's why in this -- this -- in this

12     compilation of the sitreps you cannot find all the amount of houses being

13     burnt, for example, that are in the -- in the list where you have the --

14     where -- when the teams were checking the -- the areas where -- where

15     these happenings took place.

16        Q.   And you indicated that the information from here came from the

17     UNMO sitreps.  What -- what level of sitrep are we talking about?  Can

18     you explain that to the Court?

19        A.   Okay.  First of all the teams would report to -- to UNMO

20     headquarter in Sector South in this case, and then Sector South would

21     report the significant happenings and findings to UNMO headquarter in

22     Zagreb.  That means that the information coming from the teams was not

23     included in sitreps going to Zagreb, not all of it, only what was at that

24     time, at that date, considered significant for the time being.  So there

25     are a lot of information that came out from -- from the teams that was

Page 2536

 1     not reported to UNMO headquarter Sector South or -- excuse me, I have to

 2     correct.  That was not reported to UNMO headquarter in -- in Zagreb,

 3     rather than it was considered as general information and -- and with the

 4     reports given as a certain paragraph of, let's say, looting or -- or

 5     burning houses and so on.

 6        Q.   And can you tell the Court which sitreps you pulled the

 7     information for this violation summary?  Was it from the team level

 8     sitrep or from the HQ to Zagreb level?

 9        A.   Okay.  When this compilation of -- of -- like it said -- says,

10     daily sitreps from 7 August to 4 September.  This is the sitreps coming

11     in from the teams to Sector South headquarters.  So this information --

12     not all of this information can be found in the sitreps going to Zagreb.

13     So everything -- or anything going to Zagreb was filtered from this

14     information, and this information is not a compilation of everything that

15     was in the sitreps.  So it's only taking into account the matters that

16     were supposed to be included in this type of report.

17        Q.   Thank you.  And did you prepare --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, just for my understanding.  In the last

19     answer you said, "And this information is not a compilation of everything

20     that was in the sitreps."  When you said "this information," were you

21     talking about the information that was sent to UNMO headquarters Zagreb,

22     or were you talking about information we find in the summary of

23     humanitarian violations?

24             THE WITNESS:  What I was referring is that this report does not

25     include all the information coming from the teams to Sector South UNMO

Page 2537

 1     headquarter.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

 3             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   Mr. Anttila, did you prepare other kinds of reports in connection

 5     with humanitarian rights violations?

 6        A.   Other kinds.  Well --

 7        Q.   I'm sorry, perhaps that was a --

 8        A.   I don't quite get the point.

 9        Q.   What I'm trying to find out is if you participated in creating

10     any additional reports with respect to human rights violations.

11        A.   We -- officially we did not -- apart from these reports that are

12     included here, we did not present any other official reports.  Of course

13     we had contacts with the other UN organisations, and on a verbal level we

14     were discussing these matters, but official reports are included in these

15     proceedings.

16             MR. RUSSO:  Madam Registrar, can we please pull up 65 ter number

17     1586.

18        Q.   Looking at 65 ter 1586, Mr. Anttila, can you tell me if you

19     recall this report?

20        A.   Yeah, I do.

21        Q.   And can you please tell the Court what this report is based on?

22     Where did the information come from?

23        A.   Well, this is based on the information that we looked at

24     previously.  So it's based on the reports coming in from the teams about

25     the damages and -- it's based on the same information.

Page 2538

 1             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, at this time I would move for the

 2     admission of 65 ter 1586.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  No objection.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  No objection.

 5             Could I ask you one clarification.  You said this was based on

 6     the same information.  Did you mean based on the same information

 7     strictly speaking, or are you talking about the same source of

 8     information?

 9             I have not reviewed the document, so I do not know whether --

10     when it seems to --

11             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  This is based on the reports coming from the

12     UNMO teams in the sector that -- the reports that we received in the

13     headquarters, and this information coming from the teams included all the

14     information based on which the compilation was done.  So in that way I'm

15     referring that it was based on the same information coming in as the

16     previous document.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, I'm asking this for the following reason.

18     If you make a compilation, you make a selection from the information that

19     reaches you.

20             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, was it that this report was based on the same

22     information that reached you, or was it based on the same selection of

23     information that reached you?

24             THE WITNESS:  I would say that this could be a cover page for

25     the -- for the -- for the compilation of information that was presented

Page 2539

 1     previously.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That sounds very much as rather the

 3     information -- the selected information for the other reports.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Mr. Russo, you're about -- you wanted to

 6     tender this.  Mr. Kehoe said already he had no objections, speaking for

 7     all Defence teams.

 8             Madam Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that would be Exhibit  P177.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  P177 is admitted into evidence.  Please proceed.

11             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Your Honours.

12        Q.   Mr. Anttila, you can see in the "From" line here it indicates in

13     addition to UNMO HQ Sector South, it indicates "Human Rights Activities

14     Team (HRAT)."  Were you part of a Human Rights Action Team?

15        A.   Yes, I was.

16        Q.   And can you explain to the Court basically how your

17     responsibilities were divide between your UNMO tasks and the HRAT tasks?

18        A.   Okay.  At that time in November myself, Major Peter Marti, and at

19     the time Captain Ivan Valduranove from the Czech republic, we were part

20     of the human rights team.  Our task -- our main task was to compile the

21     information given from the from the UNMO teams into these type of reports

22     and to patrol together with the other UN organisations within the area.

23             So we were not limited into the area of, let's say, Knin only.

24     The area of the human rights team was the whole area of Sector South, and

25     we would patrol in -- in groups of three people, which would include one

Page 2540

 1     person from UNCIVPOL, one person from UN Civilian Affairs, and then one

 2     person from -- from the military observing organisation.

 3        Q.   Did you share any of the information that you gathered about the

 4     UNMO damage survey, was any of that information shared with the HRAT team

 5     organisations or other organisations?

 6        A.   Okay.  There was -- at the time there was a human rights

 7     organisation in the UN organisation coming down all the way from at

 8     JordBat's the mission area level, but the actual fact was that the

 9     information that we had was available for the other participating parts

10     of the human rights organisation.

11        Q.   And can you tell the Court who those other participating parts

12     were?

13        A.   Well, like I said, from my point of view at that time I was not

14     very much concerned about -- okay.  I was told that there was somebody

15     from civilian affairs, from the UN organisation, coming to the patrol.

16     For me at that time it was enough to know that civilian affairs, CIVPOL,

17     and UNMOs were patrolling together.  So I don't know exactly the

18     organisational level or the positions that the persons were holding that

19     were on the patrols.

20        Q.   Did you ever attend any meetings at which the information

21     collected on humanitarian violations was discussed?

22        A.   We were having daily briefings in the afternoon after having

23     patrols, and in the daily briefings there was a specified representative

24     of human rights team present in the sector.  So sometimes it was myself,

25     sometimes it was somebody from other UN organisations and so on.  So --

Page 2541

 1     and later on -- in the beginning it was more or less a task that we took

 2     up, and then later on it was passed over to CIVPOL and -- and UN civilian

 3     affairs to be responsible for reporting those things.

 4        Q.   And were representatives from ECMM present at these meetings?

 5        A.   Normally ECMM representatives would have access to -- to these

 6     daily briefings, yes.

 7        Q.   I'm not sure I understand what "have access to" means.  Did they

 8     attend?

 9        A.   They attended when they were in -- in the location.  When they

10     were somewhere else they could not, of course, attend.  But they were not

11     restricted from attending the meetings.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honours, I have no further questions.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Russo.  We're close to the time where

15     we usually have the break.  I suggest that we have the break now.  We

16     will resume at 10 minutes to 11.00.

17                           --- Recess taken at 10.22 a.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, from the fact that you're standing I

20     deduce that you're the first one to cross-examine the witness.

21             Mr. Russo, you're standing, as well, so you're not

22     cross-examining the witness.

23             MR. TIEGER:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  I have a minor matter not

24     related to the cross-examination and I'll speak cryptically.

25             During the break we attempted to provide the Court with a

Page 2542

 1     courtesy copy.  I just wanted to make sure that was received.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  At least as far as I'm concerned, you were

 3     successful.

 4             Yes.  You were in every respect successful, Mr. Tieger.  We'll

 5     try to deal with the matter today.

 6             Mr. Kehoe -- Mr. Russo.

 7             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.  I neglected to -- with

 8     respect to the very last exhibit which was admitted into evidence, that

 9     was P177, I neglected to have -- asked to have that admitted under seal

10     as it contains the names of several of the victims discovered in Sector

11     South.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Madam Registrar -- I take it there are no

13     objection against it being admitted under seal.  Madam Registrar, P177

14     was admitted but is now admitted under seal.

15             Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

16                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kehoe:

17        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Anttila.  I would like to ask you some

18     questions not only about what you talked about this morning but also

19     develop some of the issues that came up during the course of your several

20     written statements, okay?  And I'll try to direct you to those statements

21     as much as possible, and I do believe that you have written copies before

22     you, but if you don't at any point please let us know.  Okay?

23        A.   Okay.

24        Q.   Mr. Anttila, I think you noted for us, at JordBat's initially,

25     that -- and this is in P171, in paragraph 1, that you were a construction

Page 2543

 1     or are a construction engineer.

 2        A.   That's correct.

 3        Q.   And that --

 4        A.   That's my -- I have been in college, and that's my civilian

 5     training.

 6        Q.   And you also noted for us in that statement that you were not a

 7     professional military officer.

 8        A.   That's true.

 9        Q.   Now, when you arrived in Knin on the 14th of August, you had

10     never been there; is that right?

11        A.   That is correct.

12        Q.   And you were unfamiliar with the area?

13        A.   That was my first time in that area, yes.

14        Q.   Now, before we go into what you talked about, at JordBat's

15     initially on the provisional assessment and your testimony in that

16     regard, I'd like to bring up on the screen Exhibit P60.  And if we could

17     go to the -- I guess it would be the third page of this.

18             And, Mr. Anttila, that is the statement that you wrote on -- or

19     was offered to the Trial Chamber on the 18th of December, 1995.  Do you

20     recall that, sir?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now, Mr. Anttila, tell us the circumstances of this.  Where were

23     you when this was written?

24        A.   Where was I when this was --

25        Q.   Well, let me withdraw that.  Who wrote it?

Page 2544

 1        A.   I wrote it.

 2        Q.   You wrote it?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And where were you when you wrote it?

 5        A.   In Zagreb.

 6        Q.   And who else was with you?

 7        A.   In that particular moment, I was asked to make a statement about

 8     the crater analysis that we performed, and at that moment in the office

 9     where I physically wrote it was nobody else present.

10        Q.   Okay.  And did you type it up?

11        A.   I typed it up myself.

12        Q.   And did you sign it at that time?

13        A.   I signed it at that time, yeah.

14        Q.   And who asked you to prepare this?

15        A.   This question was brought up by the -- by the Tribunal

16     investigator.  I think it was the Danish -- what's his name.

17        Q.   Let me help you there.  Would that have been Joakim Robertson?

18        A.   Probably, yes.

19        Q.   Now, was he present when you were typing this up?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   When you went through the information, for instance, and got the

22     grid references, et cetera, did you go to a map or did you have that

23     information with you?

24        A.   Of course I had the map on the wall in the office where I was

25     working at that time.

Page 2545

 1        Q.   And you examined it at the time?

 2        A.   Well, I was -- I was looking at the map, and the -- yeah.  The

 3     grid reference is a general area where -- like it says here it's -- it's

 4     a four-digit grid reference, which means that it's not pinpointing things

 5     out.  It's, rather, giving the area where it happened.

 6        Q.   And the four-digit grid reference is one kilometre by one

 7     kilometre, isn't it?

 8        A.   Exactly.

 9        Q.   And when did Mr. Munkelien sign this?

10        A.   That I don't have information on.  I don't know when he signed

11     it.  He was not there at the moment when he -- when he -- when he -- I

12     did not see him signing this.

13        Q.   Now, sir, this particular document, had you talked to

14     Mr. Munkelien about this before you prepared it?

15        A.   We talked about this incident.  We talked about the crater

16     analysis after we conducted the actual analysis individually, both of us,

17     and at that time we came to the conclusion that this was what was -- had

18     taken place, that the findings were the same, that we both came to the

19     same conclusion.

20        Q.   Okay, sir.  Now, when you -- I mean, did you sign this?  I think

21     your cover sheet says that you signed it on the 18th of December, 1995?

22        A.   Yeah.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, may I ask one clarify question.

24             I'm not a native speaker, Mr. Anttila.  Neither are you, but we

25     conducted the actual analysis individually, both of us.  Do I have to

Page 2546

 1     understand that you analysed the crater and Mr. Munkelien did analyse the

 2     crater, that you came to your own conclusions and then found out that you

 3     shared the same --

 4             THE WITNESS:  The same conclusion.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  The same conclusion.  So you did not come together

 6     to a conclusion in a conversation.

 7             THE WITNESS:  No.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  But each separately came to this conclusion.

 9             THE WITNESS:  I went there.  He went there.  There was six

10     impacts.  He was studying the three on that side.  I was studying the

11     three on that side, and we met in the middle, and we had reached the same

12     conclusion.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

14             MR. KEHOE:

15        Q.   Now, if I may -- by the way, this piece of paper is on the Sector

16     South letterhead.  Sector South letterhead didn't exist at this time, did

17     it?

18        A.   Sector South was terminated before that time, but we did not have

19     any other basis to use at that time.

20        Q.   Mr. Anttila, we've had a lot of information about Sector South

21     ending, and I just wanted to clarify that.

22        A.   Yeah.

23        Q.   Sir, you noted for us in your statement and I refer to the

24     December 2007 statement, 172, at -- excuse me.  That would be 173, at

25     paragraph 6, that you had had artillery training as well as the crater

Page 2547

 1     analysis training with the Finnish armed forces; is that right?

 2        A.   That is correct.  I'm -- I'm trained to be the mortar or

 3     artillery firer, aiming position in my military training.

 4        Q.   And obviously prior to that -- when you were conducting that

 5     training and you were being instructed, you were taught that when you do

 6     this type of analysis it's important to be as precise as possible, isn't

 7     it?

 8        A.   Yeah, normally.  Yes.

 9        Q.   And by the way, when -- before you went to Sector South, had you

10     had training in HV weaponry as well as ARSK weaponry?

11        A.   We were given information about the -- the weaponry normally used

12     in -- or available for the parties in this area, which were the weaponry

13     that was available for JNA prior to all this happened and then what

14     was -- what was brought in later on.  So we had a book or a booklet --

15     rather, a book where all the weapons were described, and we had several

16     different types of -- of ways of defining what the weapon used would be.

17        Q.   Now, if I may, sir -- if I might have one moment.

18             So it would be accurate to say that most of the training that you

19     received was on weaponry that had been used by the JNA?

20        A.   It was not specified as to be used by JNA.  It was general

21     information about the weaponry available in this area, and it was -- it

22     was not based on JNA information.

23        Q.   Okay.  Now, you noted for us when you went through this

24     statement -- or prior to this statement you and Mr. Munkelien were in the

25     same area and examined the impact area and then came together and came --

Page 2548

 1     and drafted this particular memo or voluntary statement that we have in

 2     P60.  Is that accurate?

 3        A.   Mm-hmm.  Well, that -- like it says in the cover sheet, that was

 4     drafted on the 18th of December, which is far beyond the time when we

 5     actually were on the spot.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And -- but it was consistent with the conclusions that you

 7     made back on the -- I guess the 17th --

 8        A.   17th of August, yes.

 9        Q.   Let me bring up 1D19 -- or, before I do that, I mean, you note

10     that the grid reference here is WJ9778; is that right?

11        A.   9778, yes.

12        Q.   Can we bring up 1D190034.  And, Madam Registrar, we'd like to

13     show this to the Court via Sanction.

14             If I can just move to -- if I can just change that to 0035 first.

15             Now, if you can take a look at this, Mr. Anttila, and I direct

16     your attention to the upper right-hand corner which has the grid

17     reference of 9778.

18        A.   Mm-hmm.

19        Q.   Is that -- you have to say --

20        A.   Yes, yes.  I can see the grid reference.

21        Q.   Now, let me take you down to the other grid which is 9677, and in

22     the small red circle, that's the approximate area that you told us was

23     the impact area for these -- these rockets, wasn't it?

24        A.   Yeah, that's correct.

25        Q.   So the grid -- was the grid reference that you put in your report

Page 2549

 1     of December the 18th incorrect?

 2        A.   This is correct.  The grid reference is incorrect.  I agree with

 3     you with that.  So -- and the reason for that was that at the time when

 4     making this statement we did not have the maps available with the -- such

 5     specific grids where you could determine exactly the point where you had

 6     been.  And like I said, it's more or less to give the general area which

 7     we are talking about.

 8        Q.   Well, in the area that's 9778 is the area where the hospital is,

 9     isn't it?

10        A.   Exactly.

11        Q.   Now, you told us during direct examination that when you went

12     back and reported to Mr. -- or Colonel Hjertnes --

13        A.   Mm-hmm.

14        Q.   -- you pointed to the area on a map?

15        A.   Yeah.

16        Q.   And that map was on a wall?

17        A.   Yeah.

18        Q.   And that map had grid references, didn't it?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Now, if I may, sir, let me turn your attention to M -- excuse me,

21     P70.

22             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, at this time I will offer 1D190035 into

23     evidence before we move to P70.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo.

25             MR. RUSSO:  No objection, Your Honour.

Page 2550

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit  D166, Your Honours.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  If I might have --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  D166 is admitted into evidence.  Please proceed.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  If I might have P70.

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Anttila, Mr. Munkelien testified here on the 15th of

 7     April.  On page 1502, lines 12 to 14, Mr. Munkelien was asked by

 8     Mr. Russo to locate the area where he conducted the crater analysis and

 9     place an A next to it.  And you see the location where the A is located

10     on the left-hand side of this exhibit, don't you?

11        A.   Yeah.  I do.

12        Q.   Now, that location is different, quite different, from the

13     location that you selected, isn't it?

14        A.   That's correct.

15        Q.   And both locations, if we can, and let's turn our attention to

16     1D190034.

17             MR. KEHOE:  And, Madam Registrar, again, if we could show this to

18     the Court via Sanction.

19        Q.   And I have taken the liberty of circling the area at the top

20     where Mr. Munkelien circled.

21        A.   Mm-hmm.

22        Q.   Neither one of the locations that you and Mr. Munkelien circled

23     is in grid 9778, are they?

24        A.   You are correct there.

25        Q.   Now, when this comes to --

Page 2551

 1             MR. KEHOE:  And, Your Honour, at this time I will offer 1D190034

 2     into evidence.

 3             MR. RUSSO:  No objection, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit  D167, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  D167 is admitted into evidence.

 7             MR. KEHOE:

 8        Q.   Now, Mr. Anttila, you would agree with me that when rendering a

 9     decision on fire being directed towards a military target, having the

10     precise location of those impacts is crucial, isn't it?

11        A.   That's correct.

12        Q.   Now, let us turn our attention, if you will, to the actual

13     weaponry involved.  You note here that it's an M-63 128.  And I'm reading

14     from P60, by the way.  That's your exhibit.  And you note that -- at the

15     middle of the page that the patrol was able to recover one body of a

16     rocket from an impact hole and was able, therefore, to determine

17     definitely the calibre of the weapon used.

18        A.   Mm-hmm.

19        Q.   Now, you determined the calibre by measuring the bottom of the

20     particular piece that was recovered, didn't you?

21        A.   Yeah.

22        Q.   And you came to the conclusion based on that that it was a

23     128-millimetre, didn't you?

24        A.   Yes, we did.

25        Q.   Now, if I can turn your attention to -- let me, if I can pull

Page 2552

 1     this, and I can bring up Exhibit D83.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  I'm sorry, is that D83?  I think that's P83,

 3     Madam Registrar.

 4        Q.   Now, you previously told the Office of the Prosecutor that this

 5     is one of the shells that you recovered from the area; is that right?

 6        A.   That's correct.

 7        Q.   And you also noted in your statement that -- and this is P173 --

 8     by the way, who are the individuals in this photograph?  Do you know?

 9        A.   This is Major Scott from Canada and Major Simon Coley from UK.

10        Q.   Okay.  And I'm referring to P173, paragraph 8.  You note -- if

11     you can turn to that.  That's the December 2007 statement, Mr. Anttila?

12        A.   Yeah.

13        Q.   Do you have that, sir?

14        A.   Yes, sir.

15        Q.   Now, you said that:  "In our report we mentioned that rocket

16     shells were fired from the direction of 20 degrees north by north-east.

17     I do not have any photographs or notes to confirm the assessment,

18     although at the time we made notes."

19             By the way, did you take photographs at the time?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   And the notes that you made, where are they?

22        A.   They were in a -- in a scrapbook, which was later on destroyed

23     or -- you know, I don't have it any more.  So it's not available.

24        Q.   Now, you note that the directions can be determined by the

25     markings within the crater.

Page 2553

 1        A.   Mm-hmm.

 2        Q.   I.e., the fins and the detonator make certain markings with the

 3     crater.  Now, as you can see from the document that's on -- excuse me.

 4     The photograph that's on the screen, the shell that you had did in fact

 5     have fins on it, didn't it?

 6        A.   No.  This is -- when we talk about fins, we are not talking about

 7     actual fins of the ordnance which is exploding.  We're talking about the

 8     impact area where -- when the detonator detonates the rocket, the

 9     artillery shell, or a mortar grenade, it creates a certain type of impact

10     area, and in that area you can see the fins, which I refer to in this

11     document.

12             This particular -- or this particular rocket, there were

13     something wrong with this one because it did not explode the way it was

14     supposed to be.  You're not supposed to find a rocket shell like that

15     after it has impacted the area where it's hitting.

16        Q.   Now, we will go into that in one moment.  I mean, you did note in

17     your P173 statement at paragraph 3 that with regard to this incident

18     that -- and this is the last line:  "Major Munkelien is better placed to

19     provide more detailed explanation of the analysis than myself."  Is that

20     right?

21        A.   Well, in that respect that Major Munkelien has or had at that

22     time, been on several UM missions before, and as a military observer, for

23     myself at that time that was the first time as I was acting as a military

24     observer within the former Yugoslavia area in this respect.

25        Q.   Did he also have --

Page 2554

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, if you don't mind.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  If we are talking about fins, you still now say that

 4     in that area you can see the fins.  Are we talking about stabiliser fins

 5     and what do you mean by --

 6             THE WITNESS:  We're not talking about any physical fins.  We are

 7     talking about markings on the ground.  So if I draw a picture --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We are both not native speakers, but I think

 9     you call that a swatch.  Is that -- that is a current --

10             MR. KEHOE:  Splash.

11             THE WITNESS:  Splash or --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Splash nor -- but that has several parts.

13             THE WITNESS:  There are -- okay.  When the ordnance hits the

14     ground then there are typical markings on the ground based on which type

15     of artillery weapon is used, whether it's a mortar, whether it's a

16     cannon, whether it's a rocket, and then --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But it's sure that's most important for me at this

18     moment is we are not talking about stabiliser fins being found --

19             THE WITNESS:  No.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- or leaving any marks.  It's rather the shape of

21     the impact that you find on the ground.

22             THE WITNESS:  [Overlapping speakers] Impact that you can find on

23     the ground.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.  Please proceed.

25             MR. KEHOE:

Page 2555

 1        Q.   By way of clarity, when you talk about fins you're talking about

 2     the impact on the ground?

 3        A.   Mm-hmm.

 4        Q.   But let's look at what you said in your statement at paragraph 8

 5     at 173 -- at P173.  You note that the direction can be determined by the

 6     markings within the crater, i.e., the fins and the detonator make certain

 7     markings within the crater.

 8        A.   Yeah.

 9        Q.   So you -- when you were talking about fins on that issue, you

10     were talking about the stabilise be fins --

11        A.   No.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, I asked this question to the witness a

13     second ago, and he clearly answered it.

14             MR. KEHOE:  I understand, Judge, but --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  But fins are not physical things but are forms or

16     shapes of the impact on the ground.  So fins, of course, I have to look

17     in the dictionary, but it may have different meanings and otherwise we

18     have to understand on the basis of the testimony of the witness that the

19     way in which he expresses himself in English on this respect would not be

20     hundred per cent.  We find some other examples of that in the statement

21     as well.

22             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour, and I was just taking the witness

23     back to at that statement.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and then you put the same question as I had put

25     already to him and which he answered already.

Page 2556

 1             MR. KEHOE:  I understand.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  If we can go back to the photograph that was on the

 4     screen, and if we could blow-up the bottom portion of that, please, if we

 5     can, if it doesn't blur.

 6        Q.   Now, sir, taking a look at this do you see the markings that

 7     are -- well, there's one looking directly at the photograph.  Do you see

 8     that in the bottom portion of the shell?

 9        A.   I do see it, yes.

10        Q.   Okay.  And that was a stabilising fin for the 128, wasn't it?

11        A.   I don't get the point here.  I don't understand the question.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  There is still confusion now as far as markings are

13     concerned.  Could you please be specific on your question?  Perhaps we

14     could use --

15             MR. KEHOE:  If I could use the usher.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The usher will certainly assist you and

17     perhaps then using the cursor in a particular way that you can precisely

18     tell the witness what the markings were that you included in your

19     question.

20             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, Madam Usher.  On the shell -- could you go

21     to the bottom portion with the marker.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It's not to be marked.  We should use the

23     cursor here, rather, so let's take out this -- yes, and now could we just

24     move the cursor or even that thing.  We just had to remove other things.

25     The tiny little circle can be used.

Page 2557

 1             Yes.  Now we have the cursor there.  Mr. Kehoe, please guide the

 2     usher and --

 3             MR. KEHOE:  [Overlapping speakers] Just take that cursor up just

 4     a little bit.  To that line.  No, no.  Just within the same general

 5     there.  No, where you were before.  Just over to the right just a bit,

 6     and you see that line.

 7        Q.   Do you see that line, sir, where it's pointing to?

 8        A.   Yeah.  Yeah, just barely.  Yeah.

 9        Q.   That particular line was where the fin for the 128 had been that

10     broke off, wasn't it?

11        A.   Mm-hm.  Could be.

12        Q.   Now, let us turn our attention, sir, to this particular shell, if

13     we can.  You note in your statement that this is a 128.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And if I could go to Defence Exhibit 83.  I'm sorry.  It is 85.

16     I'm sorry.  I apologise.

17             Now, you told us that you measured the bottom of the ground to

18     determine -- to definitely determine what the calibre was; is that right?

19        A.   On which statement that is stated?

20        Q.   If you look at P60.

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Your statement.  And you don't say the measuring, but you noted

23     that you definitely determined the calibre.

24        A.   Exactly.  That's correct.

25        Q.   Okay.  And did you determine the calibre by measuring the bottom

Page 2558

 1     of the rocket across?

 2        A.   To the best of my knowledge and what I can remember, that's the

 3     way it was done, yes.

 4        Q.   Now, did you have training on the -- and I believe the M-63 128;

 5     is that right?

 6        A.   Excuse me, I --

 7        Q.   Yes.  Did you have -- you had training with regard to the M-63

 8     128?

 9        A.   I have not been trained to use this kind of a multiple-rocket

10     launcher.  No, Finnish army does not have these kinds of weapons.

11        Q.   Were you trained as to the characteristics of the M-63 128?

12        A.   Yes, during my UNMO training.

13        Q.   Now, if I turn your attention to the map -- excuse me, the

14     exhibit that's on the screen.  Do you recognise this as the M-63 128

15     shell?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Do you know where the propulsion system is in this weapon?

18        A.   The propulsion system is in the back.

19        Q.   And this particular 128 M-63 does not have any wings on it for

20     stabilisation, does it?

21        A.   To my knowledge, no.

22        Q.   So if the shell that you recovered on the 17th of August, 1995,

23     with Mr. Munkelien had wings on it, then the shell that you recovered was

24     not from an M-63 128, was it?

25        A.   Like I said before, I could agree with you that you could barely

Page 2559

 1     see some markings on the shell that we recovered.  I don't know if there

 2     were any fins attached to that ordnance when this came out, and I cannot

 3     determine whether that marking was made by something that was attached to

 4     that part or if it was made by something else hitting on the side of

 5     the -- of the shell.

 6        Q.   My simple question, Mr. Anttila, was if that shell had wings,

 7     stabilisation wings, it was not an M-63 128, was it?

 8        A.   Okay.  We don't know if it had it.  I'm not speculating on this.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, that's what happened if you say if this

10     had happened that would be the consequence.  It's a matter of logic.

11             I'm counting superfluous and -- questions.  I'm above ten, now,

12     so would you please.  I could mention them, but I -- you were done the

13     subject.

14             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, I'm trying to take the witness through it

15     as logically as possible so the witness can follow through.  I

16     understand, Your Honour, that --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  It's your logic and the witness in the last two

18     questions --

19             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- had to correct you twice.

21             MR. KEHOE:  And, Your Honour, I understand that.  I'm just trying

22     to take the witness through it as logically as possible and as quickly as

23     possible.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And I'm saying that you're --

25             MR. KEHOE:  I mean, I'm not trying to -- [overlapping speakers].

Page 2560

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore I count and ten -- and that's got nothing

 2     to do with logic.  I mean, it's about -- whether he was a construction

 3     engineer.  That so clearly appears from his statement.  What's the use to

 4     ask him again?  There are -- that's in evidence.  Well, I could give you

 5     questions like whether he was taught to be as precise as possible.  We're

 6     all always be taught to be as precise as possible.  I mean, these are

 7     really superfluous questions.  Please proceed.  We waste even more time

 8     if we continue.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I must take issue with the last one

10     because the witness said that the grid reference that he gave was an

11     approximation.  I mean, that was the point on that.  So I will move on.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And do you think that is because he was taught to be

13     unprecise or is it just that he was unprecise, which clearly appears from

14     the other questions which are very interesting.  Please proceed.  And the

15     answers.  Questions and answers, the others ones are very interesting.

16     Yes.

17             MR. KEHOE:  Well, that's refreshing, Judge.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

19             MR. KEHOE:

20        Q.   If I may, sir -- now, sir, when you recovered this particular

21     weapon, you went back, did you not, to a book that you had received that

22     allowed for recognition of the M-63, didn't you?

23        A.   Yes, we did.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Now, if I could bring up on the screen D84.

25        Q.   Is that the book, sir?  You can look at the next page if we may?

Page 2561

 1        A.   Yeah.  Yeah.  Well, the cover looks like the one I have with me

 2     still.

 3        Q.   And if we could just spin that.  And that appears to be the entry

 4     in there with regard to the M-63?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Now, did you examine any other weapon systems in that book

 7     concerning 128s other than the M-63?  Do you recall?

 8        A.   Well, I don't recall.  Of course when it was clear to us that it

 9     was a rocket impact, we looked at the rocket launchers and so on.  So --

10     anyway, I don't recall during that time to have specifically examined all

11     the contents of the book, but we -- and I went through the rocket

12     launchers where from I made the conclusion that it would be M-63.

13             MR. KEHOE:  If I could bring up 1D0015, and paper copies have

14     been distributed.  1D190015.  If we could put that on the ELMO if we

15     could.

16        Q.   Now, Mr. Anttila, this is a photograph from the same book, and

17     turning to the next page, this book notes the weapon system of an M-77.

18     Do you see that?

19        A.   Yes, I do.

20        Q.   And that is likewise a 128?

21        A.   That's correct.

22        Q.   And were you instructed during or prior to going down to that the

23     JNA had these weapon systems in their arsenals?

24        A.   I had the information that they -- this could be available within

25     the area, yes.

Page 2562

 1             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, at this time I'll offer this document

 2     into evidence.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo.

 4             MR. RUSSO:  No objection, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit  D168.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  D168 is admitted into evidence.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  If we could put D86 on the screen.  I'm sorry.

 9        Q.   Now, Mr. Anttila, are you familiar with this weapons system?

10        A.   I have seen it in the pictures.  I have never come across

11     physically with it.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, if I might have the assistance of the

13     usher.  If we could just put the ELMO down.  I think it's a little

14     difficult for the witness to see me.  If I can -- we are done with the

15     ELMO at this time.

16        Q.   We go to -- I'm sorry.  If we can go to D85.

17             And by the way, with regard to the M-77, were you aware that the

18     army of the Serb Krajina had the M-77?

19             MR. RUSSO:  I would -- objection, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo.

21             MR. RUSSO:  I'm sorry.  I just want to clarify.  The witness was

22     shown two different documents, both indicating an M-77.  One is an M-77

23     YMRL; the other is the M-77 Ogani.  I'm not sure if the question refers

24     to one or other of those, or if he's asking if they're the same thing.

25             MR. KEHOE:  I'm just asking generally if he knows if they had an

Page 2563

 1     M-77.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then if there are several times of M-77, then of

 3     course we would have to find out and if there are relevant differences

 4     between the two of them in respect of what we're looking at.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Colour might not be the most important thing.

 7             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

 9             THE WITNESS:  I had the information this this M-77 could be

10     available within the area, yes.

11             MR. KEHOE:  Now, if we could just turn to D87.

12        Q.   Now, sir -- and if we could just highlight that just a bit.

13             During the course of your training and being instructed on the

14     M-63 as well as the M-77, were you made aware of the differences in the

15     shells?

16        A.   We were not trained on a specific details of each type of rocket

17     that would exist in different types of weaponry.  We're trained on the

18     calibre determination and things like that, how to determine the

19     different impacts of the different types of weapons.  But particular

20     details of each weapon were not, of course, conducted in the training

21     that we had.

22        Q.   Well, just taking that one step further and going to the

23     photograph that's on the screen, the photograph on the bottom, do you

24     recognise that as an M-63 shell?

25        A.   Yep.

Page 2564

 1        Q.   And if we look at the photograph on the top and we look at the

 2     longer shell, do you recognise that as an M-77 shell?

 3        A.   As far as I understand, that should be an M-77, yeah.

 4        Q.   And the M-77 shell, if we look towards the back -- excuse me, to

 5     the right-hand side of that photograph, that particular shell has the

 6     stabilising wings to it, doesn't it?

 7        A.   Well, it seems to have them, yes.

 8        Q.   Now, let us go back to D83.  Now, looking at the shell that you

 9     took from the ground and looking at how it collapsed after impact, as you

10     sit here today, sir, does that appear to be an M-63 shell or an M-77

11     shell?

12        A.   To my understanding it should be an M-63.

13        Q.   And tell us what happens to an individual rocket on impact.

14     What -- how much of it is destroyed on impact and how much remains?

15        A.   Well, normally you cannot find any remains of the rocket after

16     the impact.  That's what happened with the other impacts of the rocket.

17     When it explodes properly, you cannot find at the impact zone these kind

18     of remains.

19        Q.   And during the course of your training were you instructed that

20     after impact -- during the course of your training were you instructed

21     that the length of the impact -- excuse me, that the length of the

22     original site after the impact, after the impact now, the length that's

23     remaining is approximately one-third the size of the original shell?

24     Were you taught that?

25        A.   To answer your specific question, no.

Page 2565

 1        Q.   So if we went through the mathematics of the length of the M-77

 2     and how much would remain as opposed to the M-63 on how much would remain

 3     after impact, you wouldn't have any idea about that?

 4        A.   That's not what I was saying.

 5        Q.   Just explain to me, then.

 6        A.   The shell that is in the picture is something that comes from an

 7     ordnance that did not explode properly.  Normally you would not find this

 8     kind of a -- if the explosion happens the way it's supposed to happen,

 9     you will not find this kind of an ordnance in the area.

10        Q.   Now, you also noted for us, and I'm going back to P60, that the

11     approximate angle of fire was 20 degrees north by north-east.

12        A.   Mm-hm.

13        Q.   Is that right?

14        A.   Yeah.

15        Q.   And if I may put 1D190011 on the screen, and if I can just do

16     this via Sanction, Madam Usher.

17             Now, Mr. Anttila, looking at this particular map and taking the

18     location from the area of impact and going 20 degrees, it points towards

19     the area of Strmica, doesn't it?

20        A.   Yes, it does.

21        Q.   And, sir, let me ask you, when you went through this did you do

22     any examination or any questioning as to who was doing the shelling on

23     the 4th and the 5th of August?

24        A.   What do you mean by that?

25        Q.   Which parties -- what party was doing the shelling?

Page 2566

 1        A.   Did I do any examination?

 2        Q.   Did you ask?

 3        A.   Ask?  Who?  Who could I have asked?

 4        Q.   Well, just to take your question, sir, were there UNMOs that had

 5     been present during the 4th and the 5th of August?

 6        A.   Okay.  Okay.  Okay.  Now -- okay.  So prior to that, and I'm

 7     still standing with the statement that I -- that I made at that time is

 8     that we observed on the ground that these impacts came from this

 9     direction, and I did not have any discussion about who should or would

10     have been the actual shooter in this case.

11        Q.   Okay.  So you have no idea who actually shot this --

12        A.   No.  I was just looking at the impacts.

13        Q.   Well, let's go to D86.

14             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, at this time I will offer 1D19011 into

15     evidence.  0011 excuse me into evidence.

16             MR. RUSSO:  No objection.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit  D169.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  D169, which, by the way, does not appear on the

20     screen.  Yes.  D169 is admitted into evidence.

21             MR. KEHOE:  Just if we can go to D89.  Now, if we go to page 4,

22     paragraph 2.  Now, if we can just bring that up a little bit and just go

23     down a little bit more.

24        Q.   If I can look at that paragraph.  You see at about 051500 hours.

25     Do you see that, Mr. Anttila?

Page 2567

 1        A.   Yeah.

 2        Q.   And it notes that ARSK soldiers of unknown strength were seen

 3     occupying defensive positions in general area of Strmica a with a grid

 4     reference.  Tanks and mortars were seen at the same positions.  At 051815

 5     they fired 12 rounds of artillery from Strmica towards Knin."

 6             Were you aware of this, sir?

 7        A.   No.  This is the first time I see this document and this report.

 8        Q.   When you were travelling around and trying to find out houses

 9     that were damaged, houses that were hit by shelling, did you ask anybody

10     back at UNMO Sector South headquarters who was doing the shelling in this

11     area?

12        A.   I did not interrogate the UNMOs in that respect.  I did not ask

13     them these types of questions at the time.

14        Q.   Let me just direct yourself quickly to D120.  If I may just

15     scroll up just a bit.  And the third paragraph down, and this is an

16     article from the Toronto Star of the 5th of August.  It notes that:  "The

17     Croats are very close."  There's a quote by then Colonel Leslie.  "Croats

18     are very close.  Tanks are returning fire right outside our compound and

19     artillery is impacting inside Knin."

20             During -- again more specifically with this particular comment

21     did you interrogate the -- not interrogate, just ask.  Not the course of

22     interrogation.  Just ask the UNMOs about --

23        A.   I did not have any information about this.  This is the first

24     time I see this kind of document, and I did not have information about

25     Colonel Leslie's comments.

Page 2568

 1        Q.   Now, sir, if we can go back to your particular map, which is 174.

 2             Now, the -- if I can just pull that up.  Now, A being the area

 3     that you examined, but the areas that you said that the -- that the other

 4     members of Team Podkonje examined were B, C, and D.

 5        A.   Mm-hmm.

 6        Q.   Isn't that right?

 7        A.   That's correct.

 8        Q.   And just to give us a reference, I mean, you weren't a team

 9     leader on Team Podkonje, were you?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   You were just one of the members?

12        A.   I was one of the members who had been given a special task by the

13     SMO.

14        Q.   Now -- and the team leader was a Felix --

15        A.   At that time it was Felix Anglada.

16        Q.   Okay.  Now, the areas that we look at here, B, C, and D, they are

17     most heavily populated areas in Knin, aren't they?

18        A.   To my understanding, yes.

19        Q.   Okay.  And based on that, if we can turn to P64.  P64.  And could

20     we blow that up, and paragraph 1.

21             Now, it notes -- if we could just blow that up a little bit more

22     in paragraph 1.  It notes in paragraph 1 that the "UNMO Team Podkonje has

23     made a provisional assessment of the damages caused by the HV ops, 04-06

24     August '95 in the town of Knin.  The report is based on a rundown of 70

25     per cent of the Knin town and gives a brief overview of the situation."

Page 2569

 1             Now, the 70 per cent of the Knin town was the residential areas

 2     that you just picked out in your chart, isn't it?

 3        A.   That's what -- I had pointed out that those areas were the areas

 4     where these patrols went into.

 5        Q.   And based on that, if we go to -- to 2:  "In general, shelling

 6     was concentrated against military objectives.  The damages caused by the

 7     shelling to civilian establishments is concentrate to close vicinity of

 8     military objectives."  And then it notes "only few impacts is observed in

 9     the other urban areas."

10             Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the conclusion that was made at

11     the time was that after looking at areas where most of the people lived

12     that the conclusion of Colonel Hjertnes was that all -- the fire was

13     basically directed towards military targets.  Isn't that right?

14             MR. RUSSO:  Objection, Your Honour.  The document speaks for

15     itself, and it indicates that the damage is to the close vicinity of

16     military targets.  It doesn't make the conclusion Mr. Kehoe has

17     referenced.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, this was number 11.  Please proceed.

19             MR. KEHOE:

20        Q.   Now, when you gave a statement in January of 1996, you noted that

21     you agreed with that assessment totally, didn't you?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Then when you changed your opinion, did you learn about what the

24     military targets were?

25        A.   The thing is that this statement and -- and this report is made

Page 2570

 1     on the 18th of August, 1995, and things did not stop from happening on

 2     the 18th of August.  There were further things that happened later on,

 3     and also at that time with the experience that I had from the area I

 4     could agree with this statement, but later on I learned more about the

 5     area and other things also.

 6        Q.   Now, let's take what you learned.  Did you learn about particular

 7     facilities and as to whether or not they had been used by the army of the

 8     Republic of Serb Krajina?

 9        A.   I still have -- we had this discussion with -- with the team

10     members and the headquarters staff whether a certain location was used by

11     RSK or not, but at that time I did not have this information.  The only

12     military objective at that time that I knew of was the north barracks.

13        Q.   Okay.  So you don't know, sir, for instance, I think on the

14     Senjak barracks, whether or not it was used militarily or not, do you?

15        A.   Which is --

16        Q.   The particular -- let me go back to your chart.  If we can go

17     back to 174.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, may I ask some clarification from the

19     witness in the following respect:

20             You said, "This report is made on the 18th of August, and things

21     did not stop from happening on the 18th of August."  That is a rather

22     unclear answer --

23             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me ask you.  Did you suggest that any of the

25     damage caused by shelling could have resulted from shelling after the

Page 2571

 1     18th of August --

 2             THE WITNESS:  No.  No.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  -- or was it things to be happened is what you

 4     learned and what you observed?

 5             THE WITNESS:  When we talk about things happening after the 18th

 6     of August, that was clearly something that was not caused by shelling.

 7     It was -- it was --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but what --

 9             THE WITNESS:  Then we are talking about looting and burning and

10     stuff like that.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but that seems to be a rather separate issue --

12             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  -- from what we find in this document, so it's a bit

14     of unclear --

15             THE WITNESS:  [Overlapping speakers] Yeah.  On the 18th when the

16     teams went out, not all the things were cleared out, and you could not

17     access all the roads within these areas, and then later on when you went

18     into -- deeper into that area rather than just driving through them --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but you're not talking about the town of Knin

20     at this moment, are you?

21             THE WITNESS:  In Knin.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Outside Knin -- inside.

23             THE WITNESS:  Inside Knin, for example, the areas which have been

24     pointed out, you could not go to all the roads because there was debris

25     on the road, and when this was cleared then you could find there were

Page 2572

 1     some impacts of shelling and later on, so not all the information was

 2     available on the 18th.  That's the point that I'm trying to --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm just trying to understand what you meant by

 4     other events happening.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Kehoe.

 7             MR. KEHOE:

 8        Q.   Now, sir, it's important to -- when making a decision whether or

 9     not something is a military target, it's important to know whether or not

10     it's being used for military purposes at the time --

11        A.   Yeah.

12        Q.   -- isn't it?

13        A.   That is something that normally -- yeah, that's true.

14        Q.   So let us go to P74.  Excuse me.  I'm sorry.  P174.

15     Mr. Anttila's map.  I apologise.  P174.

16             Now, the area that you circled did not include in the area that

17     you had some question about and must be in the next document, which is I

18     believe P175.  I'm searching for the document where you circled the

19     barracks.  Yeah.  This one.

20             Now, the area that you had, P175, and you have noted with an M --

21        A.   Mm-hmm.

22        Q.   -- as opposed to the F with the factory, that was the area that

23     you had some question about, correct?

24        A.   That's correct.

25        Q.   Now, if we could turn to D161, page 6.  Now, that area you had as

Page 2573

 1     M is known as the Senjak barracks, isn't it?

 2        A.   Senjak barracks for me as a name is not familiar, because we --

 3        Q.   Just turning our attention --

 4        A.   -- we did not use that name for that area at the time when I was

 5     there.

 6        Q.   If I could turn to page 6.  Page 6 of the English.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  The pages are a bit confusing here, Mr. Kehoe.  On

 8     the bottom we find 6 out of 10.  On the top we find 3, for example.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  I'm perplexed, as well, Judge, because of course I

10     don't read Croatian or B/C/S.  If I can just get a reference from my

11     colleague.  I do believe, Judge, it is the 1820, or the 1620.  If you can

12     see that designation on the right-hand side.  Do you see that, Judge?

13     Okay.  If you see the 1620.  If you almost go straight across to the 1620

14     in the B/C/S.  Up on the top.  Higher, higher.  1620.  Higher.  Yeah.

15     And if we go across at the -- at the -- into the B/C/S, it likewise has a

16     1620.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

18             MR. KEHOE:  If I can just get the date reference on the prior

19     page, on 5 of 10.  And if -- by way of reference, Your Honour, this is

20     the -- this is the -- the diary of the chief logistics of the RSK.  And

21     if we note the date at the top, 2 is dealing with the attack on 4 August,

22     1995.

23        Q.   Do you see that, sir?

24        A.   Yes, I do.

25        Q.   And we can flip to the next page.  And if we can scroll that up.

Page 2574

 1     It notes "at 1620 hours I went to the PMK rear command post Senjak

 2     barracks, had a short meeting with senior officers and deployed them as

 3     follows," then gave a list of individual officers.

 4        A.   Mm-hmm.

 5        Q.   Now, I understand that you don't know that was called the Senjak

 6     barracks, but would you agree looking at that that this facility

 7     described in this document, this barracks described in the document on

 8     the screen would in fact be a military facility?

 9             MR. RUSSO:  Objection, Your Honour.  The document doesn't seem to

10     indicate what facility.  I mean, it indicates a Senjak barracks.  I don't

11     see how that relates to a picture --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's try to clearly distinguish between what the

13     witness can tell us and what his exegesis is of documents.  Sometimes

14     counsel are even better than witnesses in exegetic exercises, and whether

15     or not the Chamber is good at that is still to be seen.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. KEHOE:

18        Q.   Looking at this screen, Mr. Anttila, would you agree with me that

19     the officer in charge is at the Senjak barracks giving instruction to

20     other officers?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now, going back to the Senjak barracks, the area that you noted

23     in P175 -- go to P175.  P175.

24             The area that we have circled as an M -- which you circled as an

25     M, what information did you receive that suggested that that facility was

Page 2575

 1     not a military facility?

 2        A.   On the date -- on the 17th, I did not have any information about

 3     that area.

 4        Q.   When you did your examination, did you go back to UNMO

 5     headquarters and ask people at Sector South headquarters what that

 6     facility was?

 7        A.   No, I did not.  I went back, and when we performed the crater

 8     analysis, we did the analysis on spot.  We went back to the headquarters.

 9     We gave the information in, and I had -- I did not have any information

10     about the area of -- which has been marked with M to be a military

11     objective.

12        Q.   Now, sir, Colonel Hjertnes had been in the area long before you

13     got there, didn't he?

14        A.   To my understanding, yes.

15        Q.   And to the extent that you were giving him the information, were

16     you relying on his superior knowledge in the area on the 17th of August,

17     1995, to make decisions concerning targets or non-targets, which could be

18     military targets or non-military targets?

19        A.   Well, at that time I was -- I was deployed there, and I was

20     serving under his command.  So I would expect that he would have more

21     information and more basis for making judgements and such things.

22        Q.   Now, then, you noted for us in this provisional assessment that

23     Colonel Hjertnes got this information from various people on Team

24     Podkonje, right?

25        A.   Mm-hm.  Yes.

Page 2576

 1        Q.   And were people in Team Podkonje examining some of these

 2     locations prior to the 17th to your knowledge?

 3        A.   Well --

 4        Q.   Or do you know?

 5        A.   I don't have any information about whether they were on patrol,

 6     but I would -- that's all making assumptions.

 7        Q.   I see.  So you don't know.

 8        A.   Yeah.

 9        Q.   So -- but you do know that he was the central repository for that

10     information.

11        A.   That's correct.

12        Q.   And based on that information, he then filed the provisional

13     assessment.

14        A.   To my understanding that's the way it worked, yes.

15        Q.   And you knew about the provisional assessment at the time, didn't

16     you?

17        A.   I knew about it, that he was giving the information further on to

18     the system, yes.

19        Q.   And that had been sent up the -- to Zagreb as well.

20        A.   Yes, I would expect also.

21        Q.   And did you ultimately learn that -- if I could just take a look

22     briefly at P90 -- D90.  Excuse me.

23             Now, sir, this is a United Nations Security Council report of the

24     23rd of August, report of the Secretary-General, and if we could move to

25     paragraph 5, page 2, first sentence.  And in that particular line it says

Page 2577

 1     that:  "On 4 August, 1995, the Croatian army launched the attack in

 2     sectors north and south and Knin fell on 5 August following concentrated

 3     shelling."

 4             Now, you know of no report issued by the Secretary-General which

 5     noted that there was any type of indiscriminate shelling on Knin, do you?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That's number 14, Mr. --

 7             THE WITNESS:  Well, I was not there at that time, so I don't have

 8     any information about this time.  I arrived on the mission area on the

 9     4th of August.  I stayed in Zagreb until the 14th and so on, so I don't

10     have any information about this time.

11        Q.   Well, you don't know of any other UN report by the

12     Secretary-General after that, do you?

13        A.   No.  I'm not that much familiar with the Secretary-General.

14        Q.   Now, with respect to the final report, in P64 it notes that the

15     survey continues to get a more accurate picture and better assessment.

16     Detailed report to follow within a week.

17        A.   Mm-hmm.

18        Q.   Were you informed that Colonel Hjertnes has informed the

19     Prosecutor that I recall that Team Podkonje - he's talking about the

20     final report - "Team Podkonje's report was consistent with the

21     provisional assessment.  I do not recall anyone voicing a different

22     opinion."  Have you been told that?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Now, you noted during the course of your testimony that you

25     believe, looking at the figures presented by counsel, that 660 houses

Page 2578

 1     were destroyed, and you noted that 40 per cent were by shelling.

 2        A.   That's a rough figure that was -- it's an estimate.  Yeah.

 3        Q.   Now, when you make that determination, that is without a full

 4     knowledge of the military targets that were in Knin, isn't it?

 5        A.   That number, 660, is later number from the 18th of August.  It's

 6     coming in November, and then by that time there was a lot more

 7     information that I had gathered from the area than on the 18th of August.

 8        Q.   My question is this, sir:  You noted that 660 houses were either

 9     damaged or destroyed --

10        A.   Yeah, that's in November.  That's the number in November.  We are

11     not talking about the same number as in the report on the 17th or 18th of

12     August.  18th of August was a brief overview, and in November when we are

13     talking about 660 houses, then we are talking about the thorough

14     investigation or assessment which has been made during that time with

15     several patrols in the area.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Anttila, there are two issues.  The one is

17     additional knowledge in November compared to August as far as damage or

18     destroyed houses is concerned.  That's one.

19             The second element of this question is whether you gained

20     additional knowledge about potential military targets between August and

21     November.  Your answer is about the damage, apparently, whereas Mr. Kehoe

22     apparently seeks to find out whether you had any additional knowledge

23     about potential military targets gained between August and November.

24     Could you -- so you have dealt with the first part to some extent.  Could

25     you please deal with the second element of the question.

Page 2579

 1             THE WITNESS:  So I -- I received some information from -- from

 2     the UNMOs within the sector about the fact that, for example, in that

 3     area marked with M could be a military target in that sense, yes.  So --

 4     so I gained more information about possible military targets that would

 5     have been there in the area before the Operation Storm, after the 18th of

 6     August.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I leave it to Mr. Kehoe to find out what level of

 8     detail you gained additional information.

 9             MR. KEHOE:

10        Q.   Can you tell us the level of detail that you got and who you --

11        A.   We went driving past the area, and then, okay, we stayed the --

12     the house where I was staying at was on the road going out past this area

13     marked with M, and while we were driving past that, for example,

14     Tchernetsky was telling me that, okay, there used to be some RSK guys

15     over there prior to Operation Storm, but it was never very specific

16     information about whether it was a barracks or if it was just something

17     that they were staying at.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  But isn't it true that we are still talking about

19     this one piece of -- on the map which was marked with an M, did you gain

20     any knowledge about logistical centres, about communication centres?  Did

21     you gain any information apart from that specific spot, what was

22     identified, I think, by the Defence as the Senjak barracks.

23             THE WITNESS:  Apart from that spot, I don't -- I could not tell

24     you where the RSK was keeping their troops, where they had their

25     compounds, other than north barracks, and then I have a suspicion that

Page 2580

 1     with the -- within the area which is marked with M there could have been

 2     some.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes.  At the same time, by giving this

 4     explanation, it appears that you have a rather limited conception of what

 5     a military objective could be, that is, troops being there.  That's the

 6     reason why I asked for the other matters like logistical centres,

 7     communication centres, transport issues, government-related offices in

 8     relation to the military.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Well, when I'm referring to military objectives,

10     and we are talking about military being involved in those objectivities.

11     So I did not consider at that time, for example, the railway station to

12     be a military objective, even though I can understand that you could --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             THE WITNESS:  -- consider one like that.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, please proceed.

16             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour, if I may.

17        Q.   If I can take you back, if I -- for one moment, based on your

18     answer, to P63.

19             If we can blow up the top of that, and if we go into the

20     "Classifying the damage on buildings," do you see that sir?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And it notes "Classify damage of buildings as follows.

23             1 not damaged.

24             2 minor damage (looted with broken windows and doors)."

25             And for some reason the numbers are transposed.  I don't know

Page 2581

 1     why.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  Do you see that, Your Honour?  It's a 3 and a 2.

 3             THE WITNESS:  And 1, 3, 2.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I see that.  That's logic as well.

 5             MR. KEHOE:

 6        Q.   2.  Is damaged.  Roof, floor, and construction.

 7             Under that, Factories and official buildings are not to be

 8     included.

 9             Now, did that indicate to you that Colonel Hjertnes had assessed

10     factories and official buildings to be legitimate targets?

11        A.   I did not think about that at that time in that way.

12        Q.   Well, did you inquire to anybody why we're not looking at

13     factories and official buildings?

14        A.   I do not recall.

15        Q.   Well, what -- what did you think that a -- when you read this,

16     what did you think that official buildings were?

17        A.   Official buildings would be administration buildings where the

18     authorities would have their offices and, like, police stations and

19     government buildings and stuff.

20        Q.   So did you examine them during the course of -- of your survey

21     throughout Knin?

22        A.   We did not survey those buildings specifically, no.

23        Q.   Well, do you know where they were?

24        A.   I -- I knew that they were along the road where we -- we knew the

25     places where they were in -- in -- in downtown Knin, but during the

Page 2582

 1     investigation or the patrol on the 17th, when we went out to do the

 2     crater analysis, which is the provisional assessment, we were not looking

 3     for that area.  We were going through the -- just driving past the area,

 4     and this order has been issued out while we were on patrol on the 17th.

 5     So this was not information that we would have had while we were going

 6     out.

 7        Q.   Well, let's bring up P175 again.  P175.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, if I mark on this, I mean, do I make

 9     another exhibit?  How do ...

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Usually if there is any additional marking

11     where this exhibit is admitted into evidence, then it should get a new

12     number, although it could be on the basis of this already-marked exhibit.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

14        Q.   Sir, where the police station?  If you could mark it.

15        A.   Okay.  I don't recall the exact location, but I would put it

16     round about there.  In this area of the town.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Now we're using a blue pen, which is reserved for

18     the Prosecution.  Therefore, if we could take it out and --

19             MR. RUSSO:  Actually, Your Honour, I believe the red is for the

20     Prosecution.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  The red is for the Prosecution.  Yes.  Yes, you're

22     right.  I'm mistaken.

23             MR. KEHOE:

24        Q.   And were you informed where the former headquarters were for the

25     army of the Republic of Serb Krajina?

Page 2583

 1        A.   At that time, no.

 2        Q.   Were you informed of facilities where officers and staff of the

 3     ARSK had resided?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   Were you -- other than the F location, were you made aware of any

 6     other factory facilities that were targets?

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   Was there a police station in the area where you were patrolling

 9     on the 17th of August?  The area that you -- if we go back to the map, it

10     would be 174.  If we can go back to --

11             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, we'll move this particular document into

12     evidence, and we can go back to P174.

13             MR. RUSSO:  No objection, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this will be Exhibit  D170.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  D170 is admitted into evidence.

17             MR. KEHOE:

18        Q.   The area that you were patrolling in A, which you said where you

19     did the impacts.

20        A.   Mm-hmm.

21        Q.   Was there a police station there?

22        A.   I don't have any recollection of seeing a police station there.

23        Q.   How about around C?  Was there a police station there?

24        A.   I don't know because I was not patrolling through that area at

25     that time.

Page 2584

 1        Q.   Now, let us just address ourselves back to your statement

 2     concerning the damage.  You said that 660 facilities in Knin were damaged

 3     and 40 per cent by shelling.  Do you recall that?

 4        A.   That is a statement that I have compiled from the reports coming

 5     from the UNMO teams, so it's not observed by myself.  It's -- it's a

 6     compilation of the reports from the teams.

 7        Q.   If we look to P66.  This is your document that was previously

 8     discussed during direct examination, and if we could go to -- the page

 9     number is -- six pages in.  It should be 548207.

10             MR. RUSSO:  Objection, Your Honour.  The -- and I think this is

11     just a misunderstanding.  The document which was shown to him on direct

12     examination was a later version of this document.

13             MR. KEHOE:  I apologise.  Well, this is the 4/11/1995 one that

14     was put in -- placed in evidence previously as P66, so ...

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's either try to avoid confusion on

16     different versions of the documents.

17             MR. KEHOE:  That's my apologies.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Hmm?

19             MR. KEHOE:  My apologies, Judge.  I thought we were looking at

20     this from November 4th.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That is now proven as such.  I mean, whatever

22     is in evidence you can put to a witness, but I think if you want to test

23     the accuracy of the final result of an exercise, then better use the last

24     version.  If there is any intermediate period you would like to examine

25     in detail, then of course you could use another version, but --

Page 2585

 1             MR. KEHOE:  I think this version is exactly the same, Judge, so

 2     if I could just -- on this particular score turn to this particular page,

 3     and it is one that was --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  What's the other one?  Then I'll check -- I'll find

 5     the other one.  The newest version, Mr. Russo, is?

 6             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, I believe -- I'm sorry.  I believe that

 7     was moved in as 176, P176.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  P176.  I'll get it on my screen so we can confirm.

 9     Please proceed.

10             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.  If I just get -- what is the date on 176,

11     counsel?

12             MR. RUSSO:  I believe the one which was admitted today was the

13     4/11/95, and I think P66 may be the 4 October 1995.

14             MR. KEHOE:  No, P66 is dated 4/11/1995.  If we look at the first

15     page of P66, it's dated 4/11/1995.

16             MR. RUSSO:  I'll have to check which one was admitted this

17     afternoon was what was -- 65 ter number 1587.  I'm sorry.  I'm not trying

18     to create confusion.  I just want to make sure there we're talking all

19     about the same exhibit.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  What we see is the number you just gave, Mr. Russo,

21     page 176 has as its date 4th of 11, 1995.  So if you check the other one

22     to see what is the --

23             MR. TIEGER:  I hope this helps and doesn't -- I'm looking at it

24     on e-court, that is P66, and I have a heading data on population left in

25     Sector South in destroyed houses after OP storm 4/10/1995.

Page 2586

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So 176 now is 4/11.  Please proceed on the

 2     basis of the most recent version.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Actually, the document that I'm dealing with

 4     4/11/1995.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that's P176.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  I'm going to go into this in some detail.  I don't

 7     know if this is a good time for a break, Judge?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it would be, but let me just check one other

 9     thing.  Yes.  This is a good moment for a break, but we'll first ask

10     Mr. Anttila to follow the usher, to leave the courtroom so that we have a

11     second for a small procedural matter.

12                           [The witness stands down]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the Defence parties give me any indication

14     about time still needed?

15             MR. KEHOE:  I am the only person that's going to cross, Your

16     Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I may -- depending on what happens,

19     I may have 15 minutes at most.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, 15 minutes.

21             MR. CAYLEY:  Nothing arises from the Cermak Defence team at the

22     moment, Your Honour, thank you.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Kehoe, how much time would you still need?

24             MR. KEHOE:  I do believe that certainly the balance of today,

25     Judge, and maybe about an hour tomorrow morning.

Page 2587

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So that at JordBat's one thing is for sure,

 2     that we'll finish with this witness --

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Absolutely.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- by tomorrow.  Yes.  That was my only matter of

 5     concern at this moment.

 6             We'll have a break and resume at five minutes to 1.00

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- by tomorrow.  Yes.  That was my only matter of

 8     concern at this moment.

 9             We'll have a break and we'll resume at five minutes to 1.00.

10                           --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.

11                           --- On resuming at 12.57 p.m.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, please proceed.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

14        Q.   Mr. Anttila, welcome back.

15        A.   Thank you.

16        Q.   If we can look back at P176 and turn to 5 -- page 548207.  And

17     just below that ...

18             Now, if you could just orient -- can you see that, Mr. Anttila?

19     I know that's a little tough, but if we could just look at that line

20     about halfway down.  I do believe this is the listing that Mr. Russo was

21     talking to you about, and if you see the Knin north-east, north-west,

22     south-west, and if we take those numbers over to the right and you count

23     the numbers up of the 41, 622, which comes to 69, and the 251, 94, 236

24     that comes to 591, the 591 and the 69 or 660, is that the methodology you

25     employed?

Page 2588

 1        A.   Yeah, that's the total number would be those numbers added up.

 2        Q.   And it's your testimony that 40 per cent of those, some 240, were

 3     destroyed during Storm -- or excuse me there was shell damage from Storm?

 4        A.   Yeah.  That would be the assessment, yeah.

 5        Q.   Now, let me turn to the front page of this document, which is --

 6     this is P176, 00548202.  And you have a column that notes, and this is

 7     one, two, three, four -- five over, "Population after 4 August."  Now,

 8     this is -- if I am correct, this is the population in these villages that

 9     were there after the end of Operation Storm; is that right?

10        A.   That is the names that had been recorded by the UNMOs in that

11     area.

12        Q.   As being in those villages after Operation Storm.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Okay.  And I see that you have here that the title of this

15     document is "Data on population left in Sector South and destroyed houses

16     after Operation Storm."

17        A.   Yeah, that's what it reads there.

18        Q.   Okay.  Now, where in this document -- and if I may, if this

19     document is dated to destroyed houses after Operation Storm, where is

20     there a designation or is there a designation in this document as to

21     houses that were damaged or destroyed during Storm?

22        A.   There is no designation about whether the houses were destroyed

23     during the Operation Storm.  So basically what -- what it says here,

24     that -- that is what could be found on the ground when doing the survey

25     at a certain time in these villages and hamlets and so on.

Page 2589

 1        Q.   You noted for us on direct that 40 per cent of the houses were

 2     damaged or destroyed as a result of shelling.

 3        A.   That was in Knin.

 4        Q.   In Knin.  And -- so that's approximately from the number of 660,

 5     approximately 260.

 6        A.   Yeah.

 7        Q.   Where is the itemisation of those houses that were either damaged

 8     or destroyed as a result of shelling?  Where is that?

 9        A.   That does not exist.

10        Q.   Now, when you make a decision about whether or not -- well, I can

11     just withdraw that.

12             By the way, are you familiar with the concept of dual-use

13     targets?

14        A.   Sorry, I don't understand the -- the phrase.

15        Q.   I understand.  I mean, it's -- I realise that English is not your

16     first language and I speak quickly.  And by the way anytime you don't

17     understand anything I say, please --

18        A.   I will do that.

19        Q.   The concept of dual-use targets, are you familiar with that?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Are you familiar with the concept of mobile targets?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And truck -- military trucks and mechanised units you would put

24     in military targets?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 2590

 1        Q.   So when assessing type of damage as a result of shell-fire, for

 2     instance, it's important to know, for instance, if there were mobile

 3     targets in the area, isn't it?

 4        A.   Yeah.  It's -- it would be important to assess the aim of the

 5     fire.  Doing the surveys like this afterwards, it's not possible to

 6     determine whether that area -- area you had any mobile targets in it.

 7        Q.   Now, going back to this document, you -- and I'm talking about

 8     P176, if we could go to the last page.

 9             Now, just looking at these numbers, you note that there are

10     22.213 buildings, 863 totally damaged and -- excuse me, 8.063 totally

11     damaged, and 9.207 partially damaged in Sector South.

12        A.   Mm-hmm.

13        Q.   Now, I know the rough math of that is that 78 per cent of the

14     buildings in Sector South were either destroyed or damaged.  Is that your

15     assessment?

16        A.   The assessment is that out of the 22.000 buildings checked, this

17     number of buildings were destroyed.  This does not include all the

18     buildings in the Sector South.  There is more buildings than 22.000

19     buildings that sector, in that area.

20        Q.   So there is yet a -- so you decided to include some buildings in

21     and not include others?

22        A.   No.  This includes the villages and the hamlets that have been

23     visited by UNMO teams doing this survey.

24        Q.   So is it your testimony that there are other villages and hamlets

25     that haven't been visited, that are not part of this?

Page 2591

 1        A.   There is a possibility that not all the hamlets and villages

 2     within the sector would have been visited by UNMO teams.

 3        Q.   Well, how do we know whether or not a village was visited or not?

 4        A.   Each team kept a record of -- of the villages in their area of

 5     responsibility which they visited, and it was their responsibility to --

 6     to cover the area as well as possible during the time period given to the

 7     task.

 8        Q.   Excuse me.  And when they told you about a village you wrote it

 9     down here.

10        A.   Of course they would give a report that, okay, they have visited

11     this village and such-and-such things were found out there.  So that's

12     how this report and the lines in the -- in the -- in this report came up.

13        Q.   Well, let's go -- let's go to P65 and talk a little bit about

14     your answer.

15             Now, P65 is the document that you discussed on direct examination

16     that had a listing of villages in the Plavno Valley.

17        A.   Mm-hmm.

18        Q.   Right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And if we look at those, Jovici, Bajinac, Torbice, Grmuse,

21     Stojakovici, and now it says "et cetera."  That was supposed to give you

22     an idea of the villages that they saw; right?

23        A.   That was supposed to give me an idea of the amount of work that

24     they have done.  What was important to me when I was putting up these

25     reports was that in the general area of Plavno they had visited these

Page 2592

 1     certain hamlets and not all of these hamlets appear on the -- on the list

 2     because, okay, like I said before, this is an example of the document

 3     that was sent in, and this particular document we went back to the team

 4     saying that you have to be more specific on which hamlets you have been

 5     visiting, but, okay, in general this is the basis for the information

 6     that was given to compile this report.

 7        Q.   Well, let's go back to P76.  P176, excuse me.  176.  Page 548207.

 8             Now, we note if you look in the Plavno Valley notations that

 9     there is a Grmuse listed.  And if we go to the following page there is a

10     Stojakovici listed as well as a Torbice, but no Jovici or Bajinac.  Isn't

11     that right, sir?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   So if we look at this, there is no reflection that these

14     particular villages were in fact visited, does it?

15        A.   There is no reflection of those hamlets being visited, and they

16     are included in later reports in other hamlet names.

17        Q.   I understand, Mr. Anttila, but if you look at this document, you

18     wouldn't know that they had visited those little hamlets, would you?

19        A.   From this document I would not know that.  Yes.  That's correct.

20        Q.   And if you look at these numbers that were in the Plavno Valley

21     by these villages that were damaged by storm or minor damage -- excuse

22     me, damaged or totally damaged from P65, the numbers don't match up with

23     the numbers that you have set forth for these villages, does it?  And

24     let's just look at -- you have 207 residences totally damaged or minor

25     damaged, and if we can look at the villages in Grmuse, there is no

Page 2593

 1     partial damage, no total damage, no buildings whatsoever.

 2        A.   Can I have the previous page, please where the Grmuse is

 3     appearing.

 4        Q.   Yes, I apologise.  I apologise.  I'm looking at -- in Grmuse?

 5        A.   Mm-hmm.

 6        Q.   There is no report of any total damage or any partial damage;

 7     right?

 8        A.   That's correct.

 9        Q.   And we go to the following page and we look at Stojakovici and

10     Torbice -- I apologise it's Stojakovici.  We have five totally damaged

11     and five partially damaged.  Do you see that?

12        A.   Mm-hmm.

13        Q.   Do you see that?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And for Torbice we have no damage and no buildings.  Well, it's

16     no buildings but no damage.

17        A.   Yeah.

18        Q.   Now, the document P65, if we can go back to that.  I'm sorry,

19     P65.  That reflects 263 buildings in the villages and 207 -- it says,

20     "Damaged believed due to Operation Storm."  So the numbers that you have

21     in November don't match what is in this particular document, do they?

22        A.   No.  And that is because like I said before this is an example of

23     a report where we went back and we asked for additional information, and

24     we did not put into the reports that we filed in information that was in

25     a way that we interpreted it inaccurate or did the not -- okay.  207 does

Page 2594

 1     not appear there.  It could have been included there if we would have

 2     been not trying to be precise.  So what this particular report caused was

 3     that the team was given information that this is not enough or accurate

 4     enough to put into the report so we will not include this information in

 5     the report, and that's why the number of damaged buildings does not

 6     appear on the final report on the 4th of November.

 7        Q.   So when we take the 207 damaged buildings from Operation Storm in

 8     P65, when your report came out, that was reduced -- and if we go back to

 9     P176, page 548207, and again we look at Grmuse that's got no partially

10     damaged and no partially damaged.  And if we go to the next page and we

11     look at Stojakovici and Torbice, we see that the only insert on damages

12     in Stojakovici which is five totally damaged and five partially damaged.

13        A.   Yeah.

14        Q.   So we look at the village damage that we can ascertain.  When we

15     look at those villages, we have reduced the number of partial or total

16     damage from the report you received of 207 to 10.

17        A.   That is what we could report, that we can confirm.  Originally

18     the damage seen in that area was in 207, and we said to the team that,

19     Okay, you have been going out there doing the survey, but this is not

20     accurate enough.  So you need to be more specific when you do this

21     report.

22             And that's why it looks like from -- from this -- this report

23     that they never gave in a specific report about Torbice, for example,

24     about the buildings and so on later on.  So we did not include anything

25     that would be something that we could not determine specifically, you

Page 2595

 1     know, that could be observed and confirmed later on.

 2        Q.   So --

 3        A.   But we tried to be as specific as possible.

 4        Q.   So who -- who's reviewing the work of this team that was going

 5     out there to do this?

 6        A.   The team leader, of course.  And then the teams were sending out

 7     patrols.  Patrols were tasked to go into a hamlet, to review the village,

 8     to make a report, and then that report was submitted into the sector

 9     headquarters where I would receive it, and then the human rights team

10     would make an assessment on -- if the information; for example, in this

11     particular case when we are talking about the example of the report, that

12     was not specific enough to be included as it was in the report.

13        Q.   And just taking what you're saying, I believe you said on direct

14     examination that you have just back at Sector South headquarters

15     gathering this material from the teams; right?

16        A.   I was not visiting all these villages.  I was there getting the

17     information and putting it together.

18        Q.   And when you received this P65, this -- this report from Team

19     Podkonje --

20        A.   Mm-hmm.

21        Q.   -- you concluded that this information was inaccurate, didn't

22     you?

23        A.   Because -- yes, I concluded that the information was not accurate

24     enough.  I did not conclude it inaccurate.

25        Q.   Now, Mr. Anttila, you give us this P65.  Where are the rest of

Page 2596

 1     these records that were filled out by these teams?

 2        A.   These records were kept in the headquarter Sector South, and when

 3     the -- when Sector South was terminated, then they were handed in into a

 4     UN headquarters in Zagreb, in -- actually in Pleso.  We took all the

 5     files to -- to a container.  That's how much I know about that, because

 6     they -- that's where we were assigned to take the files to have somebody

 7     to take them over with.

 8        Q.   You don't know what happened to them.

 9        A.   I don't know exactly what happened to them afterwards and so on.

10     I don't have them with me.

11        Q.   Now, the -- you also collected this information in P68.  If we

12     can bring that screen up.

13             Now, this is -- this is a document that you put together, I take

14     it.

15        A.   Yes.  This is one of the three ones that I have submitted.

16        Q.   Now, is it your testimony, sir, that the information concerning

17     burnings was not included in situation reports that was sent up to

18     Zagreb?

19        A.   My conclusion is that not all of the information that came from

20     the teams was included in sitreps going to Zagreb.

21        Q.   Well, let me -- let me change that just for a second.  Was

22     information concerning burnings included in sitreps that were being sent

23     to Zagreb?

24        A.   You cannot answer that question yes or no.  The --

25        Q.   You're welcome to explain, sir.

Page 2597

 1        A.   Okay.  The information coming from the teams was included in the

 2     sitrep when the operations officer saw it as important to the situation

 3     at the moment.  So we got information from the teams about burning and

 4     looting coming in which was not reported to Zagreb at a certain time.

 5     Sometimes that was when it was going on on a larger scale.  Then it was

 6     something that would be reported as a -- as part of the sitrep as an

 7     example in a way.

 8             I don't know if I can --

 9        Q.   I'm trying to find out from this sitrep.  You would agree with me

10     that there are literally scores of instances in these reports that you

11     put together in P68 with a situation report that had been sent to Zagreb

12     discussing house that is were burning and houses that had been burnt.

13        A.   Mm-hmm.

14        Q.   Right?  You have to say yes or no.

15        A.   Yes.  Yes.

16        Q.   And you are saying to me that the information sometimes was sent

17     to Zagreb concerning burning and sometimes it wasn't?

18        A.   That's why we -- in the organisation we have the operations

19     officer to make the assessment which part of the information is important

20     to be reported up -- upwards in the -- in the organisation.  If we would

21     have included all the things coming from the -- from the teams, the

22     sitreps to Zagreb would have been huge.  And that is the job of the

23     operations officer to make the assessment what will be reported and what

24     will not.  So the reports to Zagreb do not include all the information

25     coming in from the teams to the sector.

Page 2598

 1        Q.   Now, you do realise that Zagreb was relying on the information

 2     that had -- you were presenting to them to make decisions not only about

 3     the UN mission in the former Yugoslavia but also information that had

 4     been passed back to New York?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And is it your testimony here that all of the possible human

 7     rights violations as it pertains to burnings, for instance, wasn't given

 8     to them on a routine basis?

 9        A.   It's the same thing as it is with, let's say, if there is a case

10     of shelling you don't report all the impacts.  You report the shelling.

11     And the same thing happened here.  So not every single piece of

12     information coming from the teams was sent to Zagreb.

13        Q.   Well, there was a difference after you received the order from

14     Steinar Hjertnes to go out and do this damage assessment.  There was a

15     difference in the format of the sitreps, wasn't there?

16        A.   Mm-hmm.

17        Q.   I mean, prior to the 17th there was no humanitarian --

18        A.   Aspect, inspection.

19        Q.   -- aspect to the sitrep; right?

20        A.   That's correct.

21        Q.   And after that there was an entire separate section of the

22     situation report that had do to with the --

23        A.   That's correct.

24        Q.   -- humanitarian area.  And that was the information that was sent

25     up.

Page 2599

 1        A.   Yes.  Again, that is a matter of how you put up a sitrep.  You

 2     compile the information that you gather within the area and then you

 3     report it as it -- either by incidents or -- the other way is to -- to

 4     report as a general information.

 5        Q.   Well, let's look at the information that had been sent up, if we

 6     may, and let us take it in the sequence that you have laid out in these

 7     documents, and the first is between -- and this is the front page of 7

 8     August 1995 to 4 September 1995.  Have you reviewed these, sir?

 9        A.   Yes, I have.

10        Q.   And in these there are a hundred entries that have burnings to

11     them and 31 that do not.

12        A.   That is possible, yes.

13        Q.   Okay.  And of these situation reports from 6 August to 4

14     September, we have approximately 740 houses partially or totally

15     destroyed.

16        A.   That is possible.

17        Q.   Moving on with your document -- by the way, sir, did you -- did

18     you go through these and see any of the double counts that were in here?

19        A.   Well, I -- I haven't found double counts to my knowledge, but it

20     is -- may be possible.

21        Q.   Turn to page 25, I think I just saw one.  Page 25 of this

22     document.  And page 25, if we look at the -- you know, on the 30th of

23     August at 1555?

24        A.   Yeah, Dukici.

25        Q.   We have Dukici, three houses burnt, and then two lines down,

Page 2600

 1     that's a double count.

 2        A.   Yeah, that's a double one.  That's a copy-paste error.

 3        Q.   And go down a little further on the 30th in Gracac.  We have nine

 4     houses burnt.  And if we go down one more, we have the same grid

 5     reference with nine houses burnt.  That's a double count as well?

 6        A.   Yeah.  And it could have been observed by two different patrols,

 7     but, you know -- anyway, the grid reference and the day time group gives

 8     the -- out the information that you can spot out these things.

 9        Q.   Well, just look at that grid reference.  The grid reference for

10     Gracac is the same, isn't it, WK6106?

11        A.   Yep.  Yes.

12        Q.   So that's clearly a double count?

13        A.   Yeah.

14        Q.   Now, just staying with this document --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

16             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  You're raising the issue of double counts which of

18     course is a very relevant issue.  Now, you have pointed out two or three

19     double counts.  The document is 70 pages.  Now, what the Chamber is

20     interested in is whether this document is disqualified by double counts,

21     and it would assist the Chamber not only to have one or two or three or

22     four mistakes on 70 pages, but, rather, to receive information, and it

23     appears a matter that you could easily conclude upon with the Prosecution

24     to say, Well, here and here we find same grid references, same number of

25     houses, et cetera.  That really assists the Chamber far more than just to

Page 2601

 1     have some human failure, incidentally.  So if you could provide the

 2     Chamber with that, that would certainly help.  That's not a comment on

 3     the relevancy of these questions, not at all, just you raised our

 4     interest in knowing more about the matter.  Yes.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I will do that and it certainly is -- I

 6     understand that with the amount of information that Mr. Anttila was

 7     putting together that this happens.  It just is --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We're all humans.  Please proceed.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

10        Q.   Just staying with that particular issue, during that particular

11     time frame were you reporting a much larger number of houses damaged and

12     destroyed?  I'm talking about through September of 1995.

13        A.   Sorry, I didn't get the question.

14        Q.   I'm sorry.  So this particular document, just staying with the

15     time frame 7 August 1995 through 4 September 1995, and I think from the

16     numbers in that particular time frame it is approximately 740 damaged

17     partially or totally destroyed.

18        A.   The numbers and the reports are two different things.

19        Q.   I understand, sir.  But --

20        A.   So the -- the file where you have the villages and their grid

21     references and that information is a different file from this one, and

22     that file was not based on these -- this information.  It's based on

23     separate visits to the village and -- villages and so on.

24        Q.   I --

25        A.   So I --

Page 2602

 1        Q.   I understand, but what I'm asking you is this:  The information

 2     that you gave in your first iteration of this P68 that's on the screen

 3     goes from 7 August 1995 to --

 4        A.   Till 4 --

 5        Q.   -- to 4 September 1995, and in that information that you provided

 6     to the UN in Zagreb, one -- if one in Zagreb went through here they would

 7     reflect a number of 740 --

 8        A.   Cases of --

 9        Q.   -- damages of -- damaged or destroyed?

10             MR. RUSSO:  Excuse me, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo.

12             MR. RUSSO:  I believe the witness's testimony on direct was that

13     this information was copied from the team sitreps which went from the

14     teams to the HQ Sector South and not taken from the sitreps which went

15     from Sector South to Zagreb, so I'm not sure that there's -- this

16     document is one that was sent to Zagreb for that purpose.

17             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, Judge, the information that's in this P68

18     is information that was sent to Zagreb.  Mr. Anttila took it out of the

19     sitreps and --

20             THE WITNESS:  Coming from -- [overlapping speakers].

21             MR. KEHOE:  -- systematically and put it into this report.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and that information that was sent to Zagreb

23     was --

24             THE WITNESS:  This information as it appears on the screen was

25     sent to the UNMO headquarter in Zagreb as a report.  Not all of this

Page 2603

 1     information was found on the daily sitreps sent to Zagreb.  So it was

 2     gathered from the sitreps coming from the teams to the sector UNMO

 3     headquarter and then compiled and sent to Zagreb as a separate file, not

 4     as a part of a daily sitrep or daily reporting procedure to Zagreb.

 5             MR. KEHOE:

 6        Q.   Well, sir, the information that is in these reports as we noted

 7     during this first time frame is 4 September 1995, and the information

 8     that you compiled as of 13 September 1995, and this is P98 -- and we go

 9     to -- if we can just go to the front page and get the date.  If we can

10     just shift left just a bit.  And that's of -- as of 13 September, 1995,

11     some nine days after the first iteration on violations.

12             And can we go to the last page, page 548189.  So -- if we can

13     blow that up.

14             So, Mr. Anttila, the information that is -- that is sent to

15     Zagreb reflects 740 burnings, but the -- or partially damaged or damaged

16     house, but the numbers that you compiled during that time frame are well

17     in excess of 13.000.

18        A.   Yes.  That's correct.  These sitreps and the clippings of the

19     sitrep resemble the number that was observed burning by the UNMOs, and

20     the number excess to 13.000 is a number that was found on the ground

21     where nobody was there to observe what was going on when it was going on.

22        Q.   So the difference is houses that are burning and houses that are

23     burnt?

24        A.   Burning and burnt is two different things.

25        Q.   So you sent up the information on the burnings, but if it had

Page 2604

 1     been burnt you didn't send it up?

 2        A.   That's gathered here on the other report, on the database where

 3     the villages are listed in and so on.

 4        Q.   Let's go back to P68.  And if -- let's talk about the first

 5     reference.  It's in 06 at 10.30.  Last line of that first insert.  "The

 6     previous office of the UNMO team" -- talking about the house had been

 7     burnt to the ground.

 8        A.   Mm-hmm.

 9        Q.   Let us go down two, three more on the 7th.  Midway through.

10     Midway through it says:  "They saw that all buildings and cornices that

11     seem to be demolished by artillery bombs, Lika headquarters was burnt

12     down, and Lika Graf factory was also burned out."

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Let's go to page 3.  The third to last insert.  You see that, the

15     third to last insert starting "UNMO Headquarters," the last line:  "The

16     patrol could also observe approximately the same number of houses already

17     burnt down."

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Anttila, I think if we would go through this

19     document, and these are just the first few pages, that often reference is

20     made to houses burning or sometimes called houses on fire, and sometimes

21     houses burnt, sometimes even larger numbers.  That's what Mr. Kehoe is

22     putting to you in relation to your last answer.

23             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, I take it that you have questions.

25             MR. KEHOE:  Exactly.

Page 2605

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We don't have to go through the whole of the

 2     document.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  So the reports as they are on this document

 4     are reports of UNMOs observing the houses actually on fire, or in certain

 5     cases like -- like it says.  When it says the houses were burnt, then

 6     they were not burning that time.  You have to read it as it is on the

 7     text.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, what I think Mr. Kehoe is mainly

 9     interested in, in where you reach far higher numbers in this survey

10     compared to this report, where your first explanation was that the

11     smaller numbers in this report were explained by UNMOs observing houses

12     on fire burning rather than houses burnt, that that explanation seems not

13     to satisfy Mr. Kehoe.

14        A.   Okay.  Okay.  Okay.  The -- the happenings that took place at the

15     time were reported on the daily sitreps, and on occasions things that

16     were observed about certain place being burnt down, or certain houses

17     being burnt down, could be reported on a sitrep, but it was not always

18     done that way.  And that assessment was a different task from the daily

19     reporting, to go through the villages inside the area and to report as

20     thoroughly as possible the scale of the damages done in different --

21     different places.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me try to understand and see whether I

23     understood you well.  What you're saying is that the burnt houses were

24     not systematically reported in the sitreps.

25             THE WITNESS:  Exactly.

Page 2606

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Whereas there was an attempt to systematically

 2     report them in the survey.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Yes, and that's the other --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 5             MR. KEHOE:

 6        Q.   Sir, the Human Rights Action Team leader at the time, Mr. Edward

 7     Flynn.  Do you recall him?

 8        A.   Yeah, I recall the name.

 9        Q.   And he testified here back on April 11, 2008, page 1314, line 4:

10              "Question:  You were asked to give an estimate of the houses

11     destroyed," and your answer is:

12             "When I mentioned the estimate of 500 houses destroyed, I'm

13     referring to house that were destroyed in a couple of weeks or two or

14     three weeks after operation storm.

15              "Answer:  Yes.

16              "Question:  I understand the number is not intended to be a

17     precise figure, but is that the general number of homes you recall during

18     the month of August that had been burnt.

19              "Answer:  Well --"

20             I'm just waiting to catch up, Judge.  I'm trying not to go too

21     fast.

22              "Answer:  --"

23             JUDGE ORIE:  No, no, no.

24             MR. KEHOE:  Sorry, I thought that was a signal to go.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  It was, but I missed that the interpreter in B/C/S

Page 2607

 1     tried to take a breath.  She certainly needs one.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  The answer in line 12:

 3              "Answer:  Well, that's my own estimate.  That's my own estimate

 4     and I think I said somewhere else.  I have always tried to be

 5     conservative in these estimates because I'm conscious that by

 6     exaggerating I would affect mine and others credibility.  But when I gave

 7     the statement of 500, that seemed to me an entirely realistic and if

 8     anything conservative estimate of the number of buildings that had been

 9     destroyed by the end of the third week."

10             Now, the end of the third week is almost the beginning of

11     September.  Can you tell explain to the Trial Chamber how during almost

12     the same time frame, Mr. Flynn --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, it's almost 1996, isn't it?  4 and 5th

14     plus 21 makes 25, 26.

15             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

17             MR. KEHOE:  I think I was talking towards the end of August.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  You said the end of the third week was almost

19     the beginning of September.  That's a way of phrasing it.  We're talking

20     about quite clearly 25th, 26th of August.

21             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

23             MR. KEHOE:

24        Q.   Now, by the 25th or the 25th of August, Mr. Anttila, Mr. Flynn

25     believes that the estimate -- estimates are approximately 500 houses.

Page 2608

 1     Can you explain to the Trial Chamber how that number diverges so

 2     wildly -- so drastically from the 13.000-plus figure that you have set

 3     out in P98?

 4        A.   Mr. Flynn did not have a chance to visit all the areas at that

 5     time, and like he said, he was being conservative, and he was talking

 6     about the numbers that he knew, that he could pinpoint out or whatever.

 7     I don't know why he came up with that number, because I don't have his

 8     mind here.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour --

10             THE WITNESS:  But I still believe on the number that the UNMO

11     teams have reported, because it has been at that time basically more than

12     50 people going round in the sector doing this survey rather than just

13     one person.

14             MR. KEHOE:  And when you were coming up with this number of

15     13.000 and you -- there were meetings with the HRAT teams and UNMO teams

16     at the end of the day, were you telling Mr. Flynn about these numbers?

17        A.   We were telling that this is the number of houses being damaged.

18     We are talking about different things that if we talk about damaged

19     houses or burnt houses.  So it's also something that by using different

20     phrases you can -- you can get the different appearance coming out from

21     the -- from the statement, but what we -- what I believe to the best of

22     my knowledge is that all the UNMO teams within the sector went out to

23     these villages and they found 13.000 houses that had been destroyed

24     partially or totally.

25        Q.   And you were conveying this information to Mr. Flynn?

Page 2609

 1        A.   That information -- I do not recall personally conveying this

 2     information to Mr. Flynn, but this report was made available for human

 3     rights teams also.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I'm about to go into another area and I

 5     do believe the clock is --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the clock, although there is no Chamber coming

 7     this afternoon, there is a -- I wouldn't say that is in a hurry.  We have

 8     to finish anyhow.

 9             Mr. Anttila, we'd like to see you back tomorrow.

10             THE WITNESS:  That's fine.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The 2nd of May at 9.00 in this same courtroom.

12             THE WITNESS:  That's fine with me.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I would invite Madam Registrar -- Madam Usher to

14     escort you out of the courtroom.  May I instruct you that you should not

15     speak with anyone about the testimony you've given today or testimony

16     still to be given tomorrow.

17             THE WITNESS:  That's understood.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

20                           [The witness stands down]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we adjourn for today the Chamber would like

22     to deliver a decision and ask for the -- it will not take much time.

23     It's actually not a decision, but these are the reasons for the Chamber's

24     decision on the Prosecution's first motion for trial-related protective

25     measures.

Page 2610

 1             On the 22nd of February, 2008, the Prosecution applied for the

 2     protective measures of pseudonym and face distortion for the first

 3     witness to be called to testify in this case.  According to the

 4     Prosecution, the witness's fears were objectively grounded as an

 5     atmosphere of hostility exists in Croatia towards Prosecution witnesses

 6     and towards the Croatian-Serb minority.  All three Defence teams

 7     responded and requested the Chamber to deny the motion.  On the 29th of

 8     February, 2008, the Prosecution sought leave to reply, which the Chamber

 9     granted.  On the 6th of March, 2008, the Prosecution filed a reply to the

10     Gotovina Defence's response.  On the 13th of March, 2008, the Chamber

11     heard the witness on the matter of protective measures.  On the same day,

12     the Chamber granted the Prosecution's application for pseudonym and voice

13     distortion.  The witness was assigned the pseudonym "Witness 136."

14             For protective measures to be granted, the case law of this

15     Tribunal is that the mere expression of fears by a person is not

16     sufficient.  The party seeking protective measures for a witness must

17     demonstrate an objectively grounded risk to the security or welfare of

18     the witness or the witness's family should it become known that the

19     witness has given evidence before the Tribunal.  This standard can, for

20     example, be satisfied by showing that a threat was made against the

21     witness or the witness's family.

22             Witness 136 informed the Chamber that she does not live in

23     Croatia but regularly travels to and through Croatia and that she has

24     property close to Knin.  She also has relatives living in Croatia.

25     Witness 136 further informed the Chamber of comments heard by another

Page 2611

 1     Prosecution witness, referred to by the Prosecution as Witness 55, about

 2     potential witnesses in this case.  Witness 136 and Witness 55 were former

 3     colleagues.  The comments were made by Witness 55th's neighbours -- I

 4     said 55th, 55's neighbours in Croatia before the start of this trial.

 5     According to Witness 136, these comments described Witness 55's

 6     neighbours wondering which Serb witnesses were brave enough to testify in

 7     this case and whether these witnesses would dare to return to Croatia

 8     afterwards.

 9             According to Witness 136, the comments made Witness 55 unwilling

10     to testify before the Tribunal and also instilled fear in Witness 136 for

11     her own safety, as she drew emotional support from the fact that Witness

12     55 would testify in this case as well.  Witness 136 stated that she had

13     not been threatened but believed that this was due to the fact that

14     nobody was aware that she was going to testify.

15             The Chamber found that the Prosecution has demonstrated an

16     objectively grounded risk to the security of Witness 136 or her family.

17             And this concludes the Chamber's reasons for its decision to

18     grant protective measures for Witness 136.

19             We adjourn until Friday the 2nd of May, 9.00, same courtroom.

20                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.,

21                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 2nd day

22                           of May, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.