Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 14339

 1                           Wednesday, 14 January 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon Your Honours.  Good afternoon to

 8     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-06-90-T,

 9     The Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina et al.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             Mr. Konings, I would like to remind that you the solemn

12     declaration you gave yesterday at the beginning of your testimony is

13     still binding you.

14             Mr. Russo, are you ready to continue your examination-in-chief.

15             MR. RUSSO:  I am Mr. President.  Thank you.

16             I'd like to begin, Mr. Registrar, please, with Exhibit P1259 MFI.

17                           WITNESS: HARRY KONINGS [Resumed]

18                           Examination by Mr. Russo: [Continued]

19        Q.   Colonel Konings, I'd like to begin your discussion today with

20     regard to some of the principles you set forth in your expert report with

21     respect to targeting and, in particular, the planning of artillery

22     operations in civilian-populated areas.

23             And if we could turn to section 4 of your expert report.  Again,

24     that's at tab 2 of your binder, Colonel Konings.  Section 4 appears at

25     the bottom of page 4 of the English version and on page 10 in the B/C/S

Page 14340

 1     version.

 2             Now, in this section, Colonel Konings, you discuss the

 3     considerations that go into artillery targeting in civilian-populated

 4     areas and at sub-section a, you state:

 5             "On the basis of the higher commanders intention and guidelines

 6     and the results of the decision-making process, DMP, the high pay-off,

 7     HPT targets are identified by the commander."

 8             Can you please explain to the Trial Chamber what exactly you mean

 9     by a high pay-off target?

10        A.   A high pay-off target is a target that is crucial for the

11     positive outcome of your own operation.

12             So combatting that target with a certain effect that you want to

13     achieve is crucial for the success, as I said, of your own operation.

14        Q.   And does the mere fact that a commander identifies a particular

15     target as a high pay-off target does that automatically mean that it is

16     appropriate to fire artillery at it?

17        A.   No.  At this stage that -- that this all is planned, it is just a

18     matter of designating a target that it has a very high value for your own

19     operation.  And those high pay-off targets are coming from the so-called

20     high-value target list which are those targets that are very interesting

21     or very crucial for the operation of the enemy.  And only in a later

22     stage once you have designed those high pay-off targets you start working

23     on the process of choosing the appropriate weapon systems for bringing

24     the effect that you want to achieve.

25        Q.   And the decision-making process and the selection of high pay-off

Page 14341

 1     targets that you discuss, can you tell Chamber whether this process

 2     happens at the highest operational level or at some other levels, in

 3     general?

 4        A.   Well, the -- a decision-making process takes place at every

 5     command level inside -- inside a military organisation.  That runs from

 6     the strategic level, the very high level, which is connected to the

 7     political level, down to the tactical level.

 8             Also, a commander of a company or even a platoon commander has

 9     his own decision-making process although that is very quick and it's --

10     it's only -- it's not formalised it's not in a way of written down.  But

11     on the level of divisions, brigades and battalions, have you a

12     decision-making process and all those levels you also have a targeting

13     process.  From brigade level and above, the targeting process is getting

14     more formal, so it is a formalised process in which -- which is done in

15     formal and informal meetings inside a staff.  On battalion level and

16     lower, you only have a very quick and informal targeting process, but the

17     outcome is nevertheless the same.

18        Q.   Thank you.  And if a high pay-off target which is identified by a

19     commander is located in a civilian-populated area can you please explain

20     to the Chamber what the commander has to consider before deciding to

21     attack that particular high pay-off target with artillery?

22        A.   Well, first of all, even before you take the decision to attack

23     such a target which is in the middle of the civilian-populated area, you

24     have to be absolutely sure that the value of that target for your own

25     operation is such -- is such that combatting a target with any weapon

Page 14342

 1     systems is proportionate and that the risk that you take for collateral

 2     damage will be -- well, in words like acceptable.  And that's very often

 3     a very high-level decision.  That is, not on the level of a brigade

 4     commander's decision at least not in the NATO case.

 5             So after you have designated that the target is absolutely a very

 6     valuable target you have to see what is the nature that the target is, is

 7     it in a concrete building; is it in a command post; is it in -- which

 8     kind of terrain is it; what are the elements of such a target; is it a

 9     large target; is it a small target; how is the best way to -- to put an

10     effect on at that target; do you neat to destroy it completely to take it

11     out; to take it out of action or is neutralising; taking it temporarily

12     out of action; is that sufficient for the purpose that you have; so you

13     have to discuss the effect you want to achieve.

14             Very important is, of course, how close is the civilian

15     population; how is construction of that area; how is the infrastructure

16     laid out.  That is the one of the most important points to decide upon

17     which weapon system you can use, and, of course, you can use every weapon

18     system, but then you have to realise that once you start using artillery

19     in a civilian-populated area that you will have to -- a high risk of

20     collateral damage and whether you accept that yes or no, that's a very

21     high strategic level decision.

22        Q.   Thank you.  In the last sentence of section 4 a you state:

23             "Artillery assets can only be used in case the safe distance

24     between the expected impacts and the civilian population is big enough to

25     avoid casualties."

Page 14343

 1             Now I'd like you to please explain to the Trial Chamber how this

 2     requirement is addressed when using artillery in civilian-populated

 3     areas.  Practically speaking, how does a commander meet this requirement

 4     of a safe distance?

 5        A.   Well, in practice we develop for that soldier collateral damage

 6     estimates which are given facts to a commander in a field which gives him

 7     exactly which measures he has to take into account before he starts using

 8     either artillery, either close air support, either precisions guided

 9     munitions or other means that you have available.

10             And as we discussed yesterday, artillery weapon systems combined

11     with regular, I will call it, old-fashioned ammunition, so non-guided

12     ammunition, the normal high-explosion round has a certain level of

13     inaccuracy caused by the system, caused by the ammunition that is used

14     which will -- will give you collateral damage.  Besides that you have, I

15     may remind you to the fact that -- that artillery projectiles produce

16     thousands of shrapnel that can fly several hundred metres.

17             To give you an example, in the current mission in Afghanistan, we

18     use collateral damage estimate for non-guided artillery ammunition even

19     for the modest guns of 500 metres.  That means that when you have

20     designated an enemy target and there are civilians within that distance

21     of 500 metres, you are not allowed to use the regular artillery weapon

22     systems.  The only one who is allowed to give permission if the value of

23     that target is so high is Commander Isaf [phoen] himself, which is the

24     highest operational level in Afghanistan.  That's a figure from a current

25     operation, and I think that gives an idea how you should handle a

Page 14344

 1     round -- targeting military targets inside a civilian area.  It's a

 2     complex process, with all the factors and even more factors than I

 3     provided you before.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Can you explain to the Chamber how this requirement

 5     for a safe distance or whether this requirement for a safe distance also

 6     applies to mobile targets which may be moving through a

 7     civilian-populated area?

 8        A.   Well, I don't see any difference, once -- once a target -- the

 9     there is no difference in between because when a target moves inside a

10     civilian-populated area, the same distance applies of 500 metres.  Let's

11     take the example from Afghanistan but have you to be aware since the

12     target is moving this distance of 500 metres is also moving with the

13     target.  And so you get an even more complicated situation with -- with

14     more risk on collateral damage and not knowing the exact effect that you

15     achieve by combatting with artillery, a moving target.  It is a complex

16     thing to do that with artillery.  It requires very experienced personnel,

17     it requires forward observer that can constantly see the target moving,

18     and it's a complicated procedure.  I would not be in favour of combatting

19     a moving target in a populated area, with artillery.

20        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like to move now to an application of some of

21     these principles we have been discussing to the specific facts of this

22     case.  In section 16 of your expert report, Colonel Konings, which

23     appears at page 14 of the English version and page 32 of the B/C/S, there

24     you were asked to comment on some of the orders and reports in this case,

25     and I'd like to go through some of those with you.

Page 14345

 1             Now, under section 16 a you quote a portion of General Gotovina's

 2     offensive operation order relating to the tasks which are assigned by him

 3     to the artillery rocket groups, including:

 4             "Putting the towns of Drvar, Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac and Gracac

 5     under artillery fire?"

 6             Now, in the middle of the last paragraph of your report, which

 7     appears on page 33 in the B/C/S, you address this particular language

 8     ever General Gotovina's order and you state:

 9             "This specific part of the orders gives commanders the green

10     light to use the effect of harassment at a maximum by firing randomly

11     into the named cities.  Doing so, fear and casualties will occur,

12     infrastructure will be destroyed, the population will be forced to leave,

13     thus prohibiting the enemy troops to execute their mission in a proper

14     way.  This means that the civilian population is targeted to force

15     military units to retreat or even to surrender."

16             I'd like you to please explain to the Chamber, Colonel Konings,

17     why exactly you have reached this particular conclusion based on

18     General Gotovina's order to put those towns under artillery fire.

19        A.   Well, first of all, we have to remind the discussion that we had

20     just before about the use of the process of targeting.  When you use that

21     process, you try to come up with the best weapon systems or the best

22     combination between a target and the effect that you want to achieve.

23     Once you have designated the effect that you want to achieve with your

24     military operation or the de-effect then you start thinking about the

25     weapon systems and the means that you have available to use those against

Page 14346

 1     enemy targets in order to achieve effects.  And what you see in the

 2     orders that I was presented is that up to a certain level, it is clearly

 3     described how the artillery support in that operation should be used,

 4     where it says against enemy front line, command post, communications,

 5     artillery firing positions, up so far that is, to my opinion, normal

 6     military explanation of what you want to do with your artillery.

 7             I haven't read over -- in the same positions what the effects

 8     should be.  The effect is it could be neutralising enemy command post or

 9     destroying enemy command post or interdiction of logistical supply.  I

10     haven't seen that.  But, again, the targets that are named in that

11     specific part of the order are, to my opinion, in itself regular military

12     targets that can be combatted with artillery.  But in the same sentence

13     you find the words shelling the town of Knin, and I was asked

14     specifically to look at the town of Knin.

15             Without any further explanation, there is no explanation given,

16     what part of the town should be shelled; what military targets in the

17     town should be shelled; what effect should be achieved.  It is just one

18     sentence that gives no further explanation whatsoever.  And shelling

19     well, means to my part is firing shells against a city with all the risk

20     that are involved:  With collateral damage; killing of people; injuring

21     of people; neutralizing or destroying infrastructure; and I cannot help

22     it, but I have to think about the same situation that I witnessed for

23     five months in Sarajevo where exactly the same happened, where without

24     any military purpose the city was shelled; and, to my opinion, was the

25     only purpose of bringing fear to the people, bringing chaos and bringing

Page 14347

 1     disorder, and by doing that forcing the defending troops to surrender.

 2     Because when you see that civilian population is in anger, is in chaos,

 3     is suffering, military troops around an area may be forced to surrender

 4     because they see their relatives, their countrymen being harassed.  And

 5     missing every single detail, every single effect, what you want to

 6     achieve by shelling a town, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that

 7     seems to me a quite strange military order facing up in a military

 8     operational plan that, for the biggest part, looks like a NATO order, if

 9     I would have been writing it myself.

10        Q.   Now, in your opinion, Colonel Konings, would a reasonable

11     commander issue such an order if his intent was to fire only upon

12     military targets within the town specified?

13             MR. KEHOE:  I object.  Needs some clarification.  A reasonable

14     commander under what standard, and what country, what background is he

15     talking about?  I need more clarification on that issue.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo --

17             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, I believe if Mr. Kehoe wants further

18     clarification on that he is free to ask.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  I think in order understand the answer of the

20     witness, I think it would be good to know what he understand to be

21     reasonable commander.

22             MR. RUSSO:

23        Q.   Perhaps first, Colonel Konings, you would give us your opinion as

24     to the standards which a reasonable commander applies in giving orders

25     with respect to artillery.

Page 14348

 1        A.   Well, we have been debating the facts around the use of artillery

 2     already in the last 30 minutes and yesterday.  And we have seen that

 3     artillery is not the best means - to say at the least - to combat or to

 4     attack a civilian-populated area in the first place, and to destroy or

 5     even neutralise a stronger infrastructure.  Artillery, we have to remind

 6     is at its best on combatting unarmoured targets and personnel.  But what

 7     we did not talk about so far - I have to bring that up now - is the

 8     effect of artillery and mortars and everything that is called fire

 9     support is the morale aspect, is the fact that artillery causes well,

10     what you -- what we all know what we call the shell-shock:  The

11     psychological effect of artillery, which is beyond every imagination.

12             That's what we have to keep in mind.  And that effect is an

13     effect that a commander, and I will -- I had not call it reasonable

14     commander.  I think any commander should realise that there is always a

15     large psychological factor when you use these type of weapon systems.

16     And especially against civilian population that are not protected, that

17     have no clue whatsoever what is happening around them, and here falling

18     rounds close to the house far away, one hour, one hour at a time, two

19     hours, three hours, 24 hours, that is devastating to go an un-- to a

20     civilian population.  And a military commander should that bear in mind

21     always and should try to minimise the risk against a civilian population

22     at the first place.

23             For that reason, you should aim as a commander, using your

24     military force against military targets.  And once civilian targets are

25     in the environment, in the direct environment, there is only one thing to

Page 14349

 1     do, I think is to act in a proportionate way which means that you have to

 2     avoid inflicting damage to a civilian population and civilian

 3     infrastructure.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Colonel Konings, the answers that you have been

 5     giving here today to my questions and to the questions I put to yesterday

 6     and indeed the principles which underlie the expert report and the

 7     addendum which you have submitted, are these done under the standards of

 8     NATO or of a particular country or of several particular countries?

 9     Perhaps you could enlighten the Trial Chamber as to that.

10        A.   First of all, they are coming, of course, from the fact I am an

11     officer of the Royal Netherlands Army.  I am educated and trained in the

12     Netherlands.  So my most normal, my most important standard, in thinking

13     about these things and in writing them down in our doctrine is the Dutch

14     way, the Netherlands way of thinking, in describing things that.  It is,

15     first of all, the most important thing.

16             But being a small country inside NATO, we rely in a quite heavy

17     way on those aspects that are described and are discussed and are done in

18     NATO; so I can give you my answer that my background in dealing with

19     these aspects, and the way I think about these aspects, and the way it is

20     reflects also in our current doctrine is a combination of first of all my

21     Netherlands background; and secondly our involvement in NATO and my

22     experience in dealing with various NATO working groups and writing teams.

23             MR. RUSSO:  If the Court is satisfied, Your Honour, I will

24     proceed with my question.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

Page 14350

 1             MR. RUSSO:

 2        Q.   Now given the standards which you have discussed here in your

 3     opinion, Colonel Konings, would a reasonable commander issue an order to

 4     put towns under artillery fire if his intent was to fire only upon

 5     military targets within those towns?

 6        A.   Well, as I said before I would clearly expect a very clear,

 7     detailed clarification of which targets inside the city of Knin would be

 8     the military targets to be fired upon with artillery.  The order given

 9     now is so generic and can bring so many misunderstanding inside the

10     military chain of command that I never would give that order without any

11     further clarification to my sub-commanders, especially the artillery

12     commanders, but every commander in what to achieve, what effect to

13     achieve inside the city of Knin by using artillery and using the term

14     "shelling the town of Knin."

15        Q.   Thank you.  And again in your opinion, would a reasonable

16     commander leave it to his subordinate commanders to determine how to

17     implement this order without either reviewing or approving what target

18     selections they have made in those particular towns?

19             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Your Honour, is that a legal standard?  If

20     it is, I would like some legal clarification on that.  Certainly there is

21     a legal standard to answer that, but if counsel looks like they're

22     eliciting just the opposite, I would like some frame of reference for

23     that.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo --

25             MR. RUSSO:  Again Your Honour I think that is it something that

Page 14351

 1     Mr. Kehoe is free to go into on cross-examination simply asking for his

 2     opinion as to whether or not a reasonable commander would do as appears

 3     to have been done in this case.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  That wasn't the question.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  You're asking about the opinion.  Perhaps you could

 6     ask whether usually it's left to and then we heard from this witness how

 7     he described a reasonable commander, and a reasonable commander seems to

 8     be a mixture of a lot of things.  Perhaps some legal matters, perhaps

 9     some morale matters.  You have asked the question.  I can't say that it

10     is -- well, it's clear in its mixed composition of that concept, which

11     might not be able to clarify much further, at the same time, raises still

12     some questions.

13             So perhaps you ask him what is usually done here or there and

14     then whether that is on the basis of what the witness considers to be

15     reasonable command.

16             Please proceed.

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

18        Q.   Colonel Konings, in your experience, is this the type of order

19     which is issued to subordinate commanders without further explanation or

20     specification and simply giving them the authority to implement the order

21     in any way they see fit?

22             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Your Honour, just one point of

23     clarification.  Pardon me for interrupting, and, Colonel, my apologies.

24     I trust, Your Honour, that Your Honour is looks for his experience and

25     not in fact a legal conclusion.  So I trust that was what the Chamber was

Page 14352

 1     referring to on lines 18 to 25.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But I think the question is asking for

 3     experience.  Yes.  And so therefore to some extent this interruption was

 4     unnecessary and let's try to refrain when it's not necessary to

 5     intervene.

 6             Mr. Russo, perhaps you repeat the question so that Mr. Konings

 7     is --

 8             MR. RUSSO:  Certainly.

 9        Q.   I'll simply read my question back to you, Colonel Konings:

10             In your experience, is this type of order, the order to put towns

11     under artillery fire, is this type of order issued to subordinate

12     commanders without further explanation or specification and simply giving

13     them the authority to implement such an order in any way they see fit?

14        A.   With my background and my experience and as we've said before, as

15     I explained to you before, I'm first of all a member of the Netherlands

16     armed forces; and secondly, we operate very close to many NATO forces.  I

17     would say it is not appropriate and not done to issue such an order with

18     any further explanation and not leave it to the lower-ranking commanders.

19     Not -- neither to artillery commander, neither to lower brigade

20     commanders or any commander in the chain of command.

21             This type of order would need such level of clarification that no

22     misunderstanding can be done and at least it needs mentioning or

23     explanation of rules of engagement which military targets can be attacked

24     inside a city; what are the effects that you want to achieve with such

25     targets, if it has to be done with artillery.  And commanders in the

Page 14353

 1     chain of command have to be clear that everything has done to chose the

 2     appropriate mean to attack such a military target inside a civilian area

 3     because I cannot stop repeating the fact that artillery is maybe the

 4     worse system to use inside a civilian-populated area.  And it should be

 5     very well thought over balance, between the value of that target and the

 6     disproportionate use of artillery and the amount of collateral damage

 7     that you achieve once using artillery inside a civilian-populated area.

 8             So to summarize my answer, it is maybe a bit long, but it is a

 9     complicated question, so to summarize my answer, in Netherlands case, or

10     NATO case, this type order would need lots of clarification and would

11     never be given in such a way.

12        Q.   Thank you.  I'd now like to take a look at how General Gotovina's

13     order was passed down, and then I will ask you for some comments.

14             MR. RUSSO:  If we could please, Mr. Registrar, have Exhibit D970.

15        Q.   Now the document on your screen, Colonel Konings, is the

16     attachment for artillery to General Gotovina's order.  It is drafted by

17     the general's chief of artillery and looking at the middle of the first

18     page, under section 1 B, it directs the formation of artillery and rocket

19     artillery groups in three different operational groups.

20             Now, if we could please move to page 3, under section 3, which is

21     also the same page 3 in B/C/S.

22             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, that order says five different operational

23     groups.

24             MR. RUSSO:

25        Q.   In any event, page 3 you can see that it directs the artillery

Page 14354

 1     and rocket artillery groups to engage in certain specific actions and

 2     then directs them to:  "Shell the towns of Knin -- of Drvar, Knin,

 3     Benkovac, Obrovac, and Gracac."

 4             MR. RUSSO:  Now, Mr. Registrar, if we could please have a look at

 5     65 ter 2210 -- I'm sorry, 2211.

 6        Q.   Now, this is an order for attack for one of the operational

 7     groups ordered to be formed in the previous order, and this is the order

 8     for attack for the operational group Zadar.  Which was supported by

 9     artillery group TS-5.

10             Now if we can move to page 8 of this order, and that appears in

11     B/C/S on page 4.  And can you see again here, Colonel Konings, where the

12     tasks for the artillery group are laid out and can you again see certain

13     specific instructions they're given and then an order to:  "Lay down fire

14     on the towns of Benkovac and Obrovac."

15             MR. RUSSO:  And if we could finally have Exhibit P1201.

16                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, could you give the 65 ter number because

18     the Registry has difficulties in uploading.

19             MR. RUSSO:  Sure.  That's 65 ter 2209.

20        Q.   Now, this is the attachment for artillery to the operational

21     group Zadar order for attack, which we have just seen; and it is drafted

22     by the OG Zadar, chief of artillery.  And if we move to section 3, which

23     is towards the bottom of page 3 in the English and bottom of page 2 in

24     the B/C/S, you will see there, and moving through that there actually to

25     the next page in the English, you'll see here specific tasks for the

Page 14355

 1     artillery and then another order to:

 2             "Put the following towns under artillery fire, Benkovac, Obrovac,

 3     and Gracac."

 4             So, what we have, Colonel Konings, General Gotovina's order at

 5     the level of the Split Military District to put certain towns under

 6     artillery fire.  We see that this same order is then passed down through

 7     his chief of artillery to the artillery and artillery rocket groups in

 8     the operational groups.  And we've seen the operational group order with

 9     the same order to put towns under fire, again, passed down through their

10     artillery units without further clarification or explanation or

11     specification?

12             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, I would ask the leading to stop.  I

13     object to it.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             You have brought the attention to what we see here --

16             MR. RUSSO:  I haven't asked my question yet so ...

17             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but you are describing what you do not see and

18     there is, of course, a certain suggestive effect, at least could be

19     expected.  You understand that you are drawing the attention to what is

20     not there, and that is for the witness to find out what is and what isn't

21     there.  So --

22             MR. RUSSO:  I understand, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  If you just refer him to these texts and say, The

24     orders as written down on paper, then the witness can consider what is

25     there and what is not there.

Page 14356

 1             MR. RUSSO:  Very well, Your Honour.

 2        Q.   Looking at the orders as you've seen them here, Colonel Konings,

 3     I would like you to please comment for the Chamber on the nature of these

 4     orders and explain whether you believe that this is consistent with what

 5     you would expect to see in orders for artillery operations in

 6     civilian-populated areas.

 7        A.   Well, first of all, when you draw up orders and give them to --

 8     in this case, to artillery units, or I prefer to call it fire support

 9     units, you have to mention, you have to clarify what effect you want to

10     achieve by using those specific weapon systems on specified targets.  So

11     you have to come up with the effects that you want to have.  Otherwise,

12     an artillery commander of an artillery units is not able to make his

13     choice about what types of ammunition to use, how many rounds to use, how

14     the order of fire should be, so the effect is crucial.

15             Mentioning the effect, establishing the effect is coming down

16     from the mission which is given to you by the highest commanders and

17     dictates the way that you use your weapon systems.  That is not only for

18     artillery, not only for mortars, same counts for the close air support,

19     same counts for the use of every weapon system that have you in your

20     inventory.  The same counts, by the way, for the non-lethal use of

21     various systems that we have in our inventory.

22             So I would expect as we see in this order terms like neutralize

23     command post or destroy command post or attack enemy positions, there,

24     there, and there, with this effect, I would require to have specified the

25     terms put a town under fire or shell a town, with which purpose, with

Page 14357

 1     which effect.  What should be the outcome of the shelling; is there a

 2     certain period; what type of ammunition do I need to use; what effect

 3     does the overall commander want to achieve by framing his order in this

 4     way?

 5             That's what I'm missing.  And I think that's crucial that you

 6     state what you want to achieve as you do it with attacking military

 7     targets; and if you have the intention to attack certain military targets

 8     inside a civilian-populated areas you better say so; you better explain

 9     to your lower commanders what you want to achieve there; what is the

10     effect of taking the risk in attacking with artillery military targets in

11     a civilian-populated area; so that everybody is aware what he has to do,

12     what the effect should be, and what the risks involved are.  Underlying

13     commanders, lower commanders are obliged to know that.  That is what we

14     call mission command.

15        Q.   Thank you.

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

17     admission of 65 ter 2211.  That was the OG Zadar order for attack.

18             MR. KEHOE:  No objection, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P1263.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

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

23             And for the Court's information, I'm not moving 65 ter 2209

24     because I believe that already has an exhibit number.

25             Now if we could move to, Mr. Registrar, again P1259, MFI.

Page 14358

 1        Q.   And, Colonel Konings, if you could refer again to your expert

 2     report at section 13 --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, even if you're not asking for a number,

 4     it might be good for those who might ever wish to read these transcripts

 5     to know the exhibit number because otherwise it takes them quite a while

 6     to find it on the basis of the 65 ter number you mentioned.

 7             MR. RUSSO:  Certainly, Your Honour, it is my understanding it's

 8     65 ter 2209 has been assigned Exhibit P1201.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. RUSSO:

12        Q.   Now section 13 of your expert report appears at page 13 in the

13     English version and page 31 in the B/C/S.  And there in section 13 you

14     state:

15             "Uncorrected fire should not be used in civilian-populated

16     areas."

17             I'd also like to you turn to section 8F of your expert report.

18     This appears at page 8 in the English version and page 18 in the B/C/S.

19             Now looking at section 8F there you state:

20             "The use of artillery and mortars against targets in

21     civilian-populated areas without having these targets under observation

22     of a forward observer should not be done, unless the target is beyond the

23     already described collateral damage distance and the exact location is

24     known."

25             MR. RUSSO:  Mr. Registrar, if we could now please have 65 ter

Page 14359

 1     4600.

 2        Q.   Colonel Konings, this is a report of the 134th Home Guard

 3     Regiment which was one of the units participating in Operation Storm and

 4     I would like you to look at page 2 and if you like in your binder, this

 5     is at tap 10.

 6             Now at page 2 the last part of the section, section B which in

 7     the B/C/S appears on page 1.

 8             MR. RUSSO:  Sorry, I have two -- it appears I have two B/C/S

 9     versions up on my screen.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  It's better now.

11             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

12        Q.   There at the top of the page in English which is at -- appears at

13     the end of section B, you will notice where it states:

14             "In the first few hours we had no support from the Zadar OG

15     except for the shelling of the general area of Benkovac without

16     monitoring and the message at 530 hours of the following contents, 'Is

17     anything following on Benkovac?'"

18             Now, I'll ask you to assume for purposes of this question,

19     Colonel Konings, that Benkovac was a civilian-populated area at the time,

20     and given that, and what --

21             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, excuse me, civilian populated area.  If I

22     may, Your Honour.  A civilian-populated area with military installations

23     in it.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think that until now the focus of the

25     questions was mainly on targets within areas where a civilian population

Page 14360

 1     existed and not to exclude any military target in there.  And apart from

 2     that, I do not think that the witness has any knowledge about that, is

 3     it.

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

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So let's just assume that civilians were living

 6     there but that military targets are not excluded to be present as well.

 7             Please proceed.

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

 9        Q.   Mr. Konings, with that assumption, and given what you have read

10     or what have I read to you of this report do you consider the shelling of

11     the general area of Benkovac without monitoring to have been an

12     appropriate or lawful use of artillery?

13        A.   Well, as we said before, if you assume it is civilian-populated

14     area and in that populated area various military targets are established,

15     I would prefer to know, first of all as a military commander, to know

16     exactly what -- how -- no, I have to state that -- rephrase that.

17             I would like to have the area under observation so that I could

18     see what -- if I achieve the facts that I want to achieve.  So if I don't

19     know, have a clue, if I reach the effects that I want to achieve with my

20     weapons systems or with my whole operations, I cannot conclude in going

21     to the next step.

22             So that's the reason that commanders do the utmost to try to see

23     and to monitor, to observe what the -- what the effects are that weapon

24     systems are building in the field; and I would particularly be interested

25     in having an area where a combination is of civilian area was in there

Page 14361

 1     with mixed military targets, I would be very interested in having that

 2     area under observation knowing what is happening there.  So that in case

 3     when something goes wrong, when something goes totally out of hand, I'm

 4     able to stop anything I'm doing there.

 5             So putting an area under shelling without any observation, to me,

 6     is an at least an inappropriate thing to do.  It's dangerous and can

 7     cause a lot of trouble, it can cause a lot of damage to infrastructure

 8     and worst of all, people that you don't want to harm at all.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MR. RUSSO:  Mr. President.  I move for the admission of

11     65 ter 4600.

12             MR. KEHOE:  No objection, Judge.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P1264.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  P1264 is admitted into evidence.

16             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

17        Q.   I would like to move now to the addendum to your expert report

18     and ask to you explain a few areas to the Chamber.

19             Now, your addendum appears at tab 3 in your binder and this is

20     Exhibit P1260 MFI.

21             Now, before getting to my questions, Colonel Konings, I would

22     like you to first explain to the Chamber the methodology that you used to

23     create this addendum.  And you touch upon it briefly in section 1 of the

24     addendum itself but I would like you to please explain it to the Chamber,

25     how you approached the task of answering the questions put to you by the

Page 14362

 1     OTP, what materials you reviewed, and what assumption you made?

 2        A.   As told by Mr. Russo, I have been given information on the

 3     situation in and around Knin.  I have approached that information, trying

 4     to analyse it in the same way as we do analysing an operation in -- in

 5     NATO.  I did that, of course, in a simplified form, and the way you do

 6     that is you take into account all the facts that are around you, so you

 7     try to describe for yourself the whole operating environment.  That means

 8     you have a look upon all the actors that operate in the environment.  I

 9     mean by that the enemy or the opponent or the adversary, no matter how

10     you call it.

11             You look to population, you look upon your own forces, you look

12     upon the geography of the area, how is the infrastructure, you look at

13     factors like weather and that kind of stuff.  And when you look upon the

14     infrastructure or the area, you also look upon the fact which military

15     targets are in that area, how are they connected to the enemy, and what

16     is their value, do I need to combat them, and if so do I need to do that

17     with artillery, with close air support or with any other means that I

18     have in my inventory.  And the last thing I describe is, of course, the

19     targeting process.

20             So building -- I have tried to building my answer to the OTP

21     around that analysis that we do inside a military operation.

22        Q.   Thank you for that explanation.

23             Now, let's begin with section 2 a 1, on page 1 in the English

24     version and also on page 1 of the B/C/S.  And in that section you

25     indicate that an element of your analysis included the fact that Knin was

Page 14363

 1     a high-value target and its capture was important to the Croatian army.

 2     And you state that this is reflected in the "Op order of the Croatian

 3     army."

 4             And if we could just very quickly have Exhibit P1125, brought up

 5     on the screen, and, Colonel Konings, P1125 is at tab 6 of your binder.

 6             Now, can you please have a look at Exhibit P1125 and can you

 7     clarify for the Chamber whether this order General Gotovina's offensive

 8     operation order is the Op order to which you are referring in the

 9     addendum?

10        A.   Yes, that is the order that I'm referring to.

11        Q.   And can you explain to the Chamber what you found in this

12     offensive operation order that led to you conclude that Knin was a

13     high-value target?

14        A.   Well, there are various places that Knin is called upon.  For

15     example one of the main forces are grouped to work along various axis.

16     One of them is Bosansko Grahovo to Knin, and you can read there that

17     troops working along that axis have to cut off communications leading

18     from Knin, have to encircle Knin, and have to take control of Knin.

19             So that brings me to the conclusion that Knin is seen as a very

20     important city.  Cutting off the city and circling the city and taking

21     control of that seems to me to be a high-value target.  It is -- its loss

22     of the city is a major blow for the opposite party and taking of the city

23     is a crucial factor in the Operation Storm.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Now, in section 2 c of the addendum and if we could

25     move back to that, that's P1260, MFI.  Again, at tab 3 of your binder,

Page 14364

 1     Colonel Konings.

 2             In section 2 c, you detail the list of alleged military

 3     objectives which you were asked to consider and comment upon, and you

 4     discuss the military value for each and whether under facts assumed in

 5     your analysis you considered it to be legitimate to fire artillery at

 6     each of the objectives.

 7             I would like to take you through some of those objectives and

 8     have you briefly explain your position with respect to each.  However,

 9     I'd first like to take a look at section 2 c i, which is also on page 1

10     in the English but appears in page 2 on the B/C/S.

11             And there you state:

12             "The list of targets contains a mix of military targets and

13     non-military targets.  The majority of the military targets are in the

14     direct environment of civilian populated areas which makes them not

15     acceptable for attack with any indirect fire support means."

16             Now can you please explain for the Chamber why being in the

17     direct environment of a civilian populated area makes a military target

18     not acceptable for attack with artillery?

19        A.   That has in the first place to do with the legality effects that

20     occur when artillery is used.  We have discussed yesterday the

21     possibility of a blast and shrapnels, especially shrapnels can fly very

22     far away.  And it has to do with the inaccuracy that artillery

23     projectiles have in their basis.  That's something that belongs to the

24     ballistic behaviour and you cannot prohibit that in using artillery

25     projectiles.

Page 14365

 1             So you have a chance in hitting a target and you have a chance at

 2     a certain number of projectiles is not hitting a target and falling in

 3     the direct environment of the target.  And depending on how dense the

 4     buildings around -- the civilian buildings around a military target are,

 5     you have the risk of giving of -- of getting collateral damage to

 6     property and worse to personnel, to people.

 7             And the third thing is what we discussed for the first time today

 8     is the psychological effect that you will have throughout a

 9     civilian-populated area when using artillery projectiles not only in the

10     close proximity but also further away.

11              JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, if you would allow me, I would like to

12     seek clarification on one issue.

13             In your report, Mr. Konings, you give the surface, the area,

14     which is covered by the fragments of 120-millimetre projectiles,

15     1600 square metres, and even up to 2100 metres, if the projectile

16     explodes at three metres high.  You give for 81-millimetre mortars, you

17     give also similar cyphers.

18             Now could you tell us, the largest area covered by an artillery

19     projectile would be -- would that be the 203 millimetres and what area

20     would that cover?

21             THE WITNESS:  I do not have those exact figures available,

22     Your Honour.  I have taken the 120 because that is a quite commonly used

23     mortar projectile.  I'm quite sure those are for 155 and 203 available,

24     and the area covered by those types of projectiles will be bigger than

25     the 1600 square metres that you describe for 120, but I do not have the

Page 14366

 1     exact figures available.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Even if not the exact numbers, could you give us

 3     more or less in what size - I have to think - would it be double the

 4     surface, would it be triple?

 5             THE WITNESS:  No, it is very hard to guess that.  I prefer to say

 6     it will be bigger, but I have no figures available; and I didn't study

 7     that in the late period in order to find that out, so I cannot be more

 8     precise than I say now.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Is there any way, perhaps, that during

10     the breaks you find out about and find a source or -- or would you know

11     about a source or would the parties -- could the parties assist me in --

12     because we now it for 81-millimetre, 120-millimetre but not for the --

13     for the heavier weapon systems.

14             THE WITNESS:  Given some time, I can find it out.  I have sources

15     inside the Dutch army that I can rely on.  It may take either a day or

16     two to get that information.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm also addressing the parties.  Would the parties

18     have information because this usually comes from tables, isn't it, which

19     are --

20             MR. KEHOE:  Just in the spirit of accuracy, Judge, it is not

21     necessarily square metres.  It's radius that is the important effect.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it that, of course, depending on the angle of

23     descent but if we're talking about maximum, that would be if the

24     projectile falls under a 90-degree angle because then it is the widest.

25     It doesn't touch the ground easily, it doesn't have to climb up on the

Page 14367

 1     other side.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  That's correct.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  So therefore I take it that there must be tables --

 4     I mean if we know it and the surface, of course, usually at the -- I

 5     would say at the ideal landing giving the largest area covered.

 6             THE WITNESS:  To be honest, there are no ideal circumstances and

 7     the fact that you are describing a projectile landing on a 90-degree

 8     angle, first of all that will never happen.  That's theoretical approach.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand because then we have to fire

10     just in the air and then it comes down.

11             THE WITNESS:  And then it comes down to your own positions.  So

12     That doesn't work but the -- the angle of impact, the 1600 square metres

13     is never an exact square.  It is just to give you an idea how large that

14     area is.  The same we say for the when you use a DPICM - and I know that

15     this is a tricky issue, but I don't mean anything with that - but the

16     coverage of one DPICM emission is as large as a football field.  But can

17     you imagine this a shrapnel doesn't stop at the end of the field.  So

18     shrapnels fly around, they have a very irregular pattern.  Only to give a

19     reader an idea how large an area is that can be covered by a mortar

20     projectile hitting the ground in an average angle of impact, I have given

21     this example of 1600 square metres.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And that is then the 1600 square metres is as far as

23     the shrapnel flies?

24             THE WITNESS:  That is it as far -- that is the theoretic approach

25     as far as most of the shrapnels fly.  It gives you an idea of an area how

Page 14368

 1     large it is, but there are, of course, shrapnels that fly further.  For

 2     that reason, in Afghanistan we take that 500 metres distance to a

 3     civilian target because we are then 100 percent sure that no shrapnel of

 4     a 155-projectile will fly beyond the distance of 500 metres.  That is the

 5     reason why we take 500 metres from the point of impact.  There must be

 6     analysis tables we use tables for analysis of targets which gives you

 7     coverage and gives you the numbers of the projectiles that have you to

 8     use.  I can try to get the tables but that will cause time.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  The reason I am asking because I heard several

10     times, I heard you saying several times shrapnel flies hundreds and

11     hundreds of metres.  And at the same time, I have some difficulties in

12     reconciling this with the 1600 or the 2100 square metres because that

13     would be -- if it would be a circle, and I do understand it is not a

14     circle, but if it would be a circle that would be radius of far less than

15     100 metres.  So if you say that is where most of the shrapnel flies or

16     lands, then -- I am trying to understand what it actually means because

17     from what I know is a football pitch is already some 5.000 so that would

18     be half a football pitch, approximately, even less, 2100.

19             So, therefore, the 500 metres, the several tens of metres, half a

20     football pitch, I'm trying to understand what it actually means when you

21     say shrapnel flies several hundreds of metres.

22             THE WITNESS:  Well, shrapnel can fly several hundreds of metres.

23     That depends on, first of all, the projectile itself, the way it

24     explodes, the angle of impact; and in a theoretic circumstances where you

25     test exploding -- where you test artillery projectile there have been

Page 14369

 1     known measurements.  And I know that these measurements are there.  And

 2     then you can find shrapnels back up to 300 metres.  And to be sure that

 3     no shrapnel will hit anything else than a military targeting, that is the

 4     reason that NATO choses 500 metres distance in Afghanistan related to a

 5     155-projectile.

 6             So there are many figures around, but shrapnels can do strange

 7     things and can fly very far.  They can go up to 2, 300 metres.  They have

 8     been found during tests -  I have seen that in Sarajevo - that they can

 9     go beyond that distance and that you find them beyond that distance and

10     they may have capacity to injure people.

11             The 1600 metres, 2100 square metres are more related to the

12     lethal capacity of a projectile.  If you are inside a 1600 square metre,

13     you have a fair chance to get killed, but you never can predict how far

14     shrapnels will fly and how the blast of a projectile will work because

15     that is all to do with the place the explosion takes place, the angle of

16     impact, and all circumstances around it.

17             That's -- you cannot predict that and because of this

18     unpredictability, it is the most strongest thing to try to avoid the use

19     of artillery in a civilian-confined area unless you have good reasons to

20     do so because the military target over there has such high value that

21     taking out that target it is acceptable to -- to kill civilians.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  You're now going beyond my question.

23             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, sir.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, please proceed.

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

Page 14370

 1        Q.   Before we move on, I just wanted to clarify something that you

 2     had said to His Honour Judge Orie with respect to the 500 metres distance

 3     that you use in NATO, currently uses in NATO, can you clarify whether

 4     that distance is used with respect to precision-guided munitions or other

 5     kinds of munitions?

 6        A.   That distance is used in relation to non-guided artillery

 7     ammunitions.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Before we move on to discussing the specific alleged

 9     targets that you opined on in your addendum, I would like to show you an

10     interactive aerial photograph that we have of Knin, we're going to be

11     showing this through sanction, Your Honours.  This 65 ter 4776.

12             MR. RUSSO:  And you'll give us just a moment here to pull this

13     up.

14        Q.   Colonel Konings, do you recognise this aerial photograph of Knin

15     here on your screen?

16        A.   I do recognise it.

17        Q.   And did you make use of a similar photograph in your analysis for

18     the addendum?

19        A.   I did.

20        Q.   And I'll just tell you and also inform the Chamber and counsel

21     that the red dots which appear on this photograph are vantage points from

22     which particular photographs were taken, and I trust that there's not

23     going to be any objection with respect to some of the photographs we've

24     shown have been disclosed.  I'll be showing some of these throughout the

25     course of this presentation.

Page 14371

 1             But, first, let's begin with the northern barracks and for the

 2     Chamber's information this is addressed at section 2 c ii of the

 3     addendum.

 4             In your addendum, Colonel Konings, you identify the northern

 5     barracks as a military target and I'd like to you please explain to the

 6     Chamber what your assessment was of the value of that as a military

 7     target given the information that you were provided?

 8        A.   Well, first of all, the information that was given to me said

 9     that there would be possible -- a possible presence of a corps HQ and

10     when that is actually a fact that makes it a military target, and I can

11     state that is a valuable military target if the corps headquarter

12     commander is there and has his HQ in a barracks.  It is a valuable

13     target.  I would estimate it to be there.

14             Besides that, the information given to me was that there were

15     very few other troops in there.  No combat troops, no real reserves, only

16     some logistic troops and also the possible presence of the headquarters

17     is also not confirmed or is not stated; so it is very well possible that

18     the headquarters isn't even present.  That was the information that was

19     given to me.

20        Q.   And can you explain to the Chamber why you say in your addendum

21     that it should not have been attacked with artillery on the 4th of

22     August?

23        A.   Well, there are numerous reasons that I came to that conclusion.

24     First of all it is -- the barracks are surrounded on various sides by

25     civilian-populated areas, and as I was informed on the first day of the

Page 14372

 1     attack, still some 15.000 people were inside the city.

 2             Secondly, the barracks contain, the barracks, the buildings on

 3     the barracks are rather strong concrete either brick-built building, so

 4     the effect of artillery attacking those buildings would be very low

 5     unless you use large numbers of artillery projectiles which would even --

 6     which would endanger the environment.

 7             And lastly, since are you not sure if the corps commander is

 8     there, have you to be sure that he is there and even if he would be in

 9     the barracks he would have his headquarters somewhere in one of these

10     buildings.  You have to be absolutely sure which building it is, and

11     where he is in that building.  You have to know the moment, the place,

12     every single detail; and I assume that he will not have his headquarters

13     on the roof or somewhere close to the roof or in the ceiling.  He will

14     have his headquarters somewhere in a protected area, in a basement in a

15     cellar where he is reasonable protected against artillery attacks, having

16     seen those buildings.

17             So that brings a lot of uncertainties against the use of

18     artillery weapon systems for attacking these barracks.

19        Q.   Thank you, Colonel Konings.  Now looking at this particular

20     photograph, which is a photograph of one of the buildings there in the

21     barracks, can you give the Chamber some idea of what effect, if any,

22     artillery fire would have on a building like this.

23        A.   Well, the effect of an artillery projectile on there building,

24     first of all if it hits the building it might -- it will explode.  I

25     don't think it will go -- it will even go through the building.  It go

Page 14373

 1     through the wall.  If in case you use a concrete piercing fuse, it will -

 2     I guess - I think it will go through, but I'm not quite sure I haven't

 3     seen the construction of the buildings myself.

 4             But the construction is such that even if the projectiles hit the

 5     building it will -- it will take lots of projectile, and I really mean

 6     lots, more than hundred to be able to destroy a part of the building.  So

 7     you can imagine if a HQ is in the lower basement or in the cellar of this

 8     building that an artillery shelling of this building will not close down

 9     this -- this headquarters in the first place.

10             Projectiles that will miss the building will only leave some

11     marks at the outside or will shatter windows, will blow out a door,

12     et cetera.  So it will be superficial damage.  It will not be structural

13     which will bring down the building because artillery projectiles in a way

14     that they were used in 1995 are not fit for that unless - what I told you

15     before - you use a lot of projectiles then you are able to bring down a

16     part of the building.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Now looking at the photo here, can you tell the Court

18     if artillery shells were fired at the building we just looked at what

19     effect that would also have on this building which we see here across the

20     street.

21        A.   Well, first of all it depends on the distance that the artillery

22     projectile falls between the two buildings but as we discussed before

23     this distance is such that shrapnels will reach that building that is now

24     on the screen so they will bring damage to that building.  They will not

25     destroy the building, but will form a serious danger for people living

Page 14374

 1     that are living there in bringing down glass windows, shrapnels that fly

 2     into living rooms.  People might be on the street and so there will be

 3     injuries caused, and in certain cases, people will have the possibility

 4     to be -- to be killed.  The distance is such that that is capable by

 5     doing -- by using high-explosive projectiles.

 6             Besides that shelling such a building in the barracks, and I

 7     cannot stop saying that, will cause huge psychological effect on the

 8     people that are living in those buildings closely in the close

 9     environment of the -- of the barracks.

10        Q.   Let's move now to the Senjak barracks which is this facility

11     which see here on the screen --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, could we go back to the previous -- to

13     the northern barracks for a second so --

14             MR. RUSSO:  Sure.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  So as to allow us to --

16             MR. RUSSO:  Would you like that photograph in particular,

17     Your Honour?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I'm just trying to ...

19             Mr. Konings, could you tell us what the distance was between the

20     buildings across the street and the building which may have housed the

21     headquarters.

22             THE WITNESS:  I think that it is less than 100 metres.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

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

25        Q.   Now moving to the Senjak barracks, which, again, is this

Page 14375

 1     particular facility we see here on the screen.

 2             This you address at subsection c iii of your addendum and you

 3     also identify the Senjak barracks as a military target, and I would again

 4     ask you to explain to the Trial Chamber what you consider to have been

 5     the value of that target on the 4th of August, given the information you

 6     were provided.

 7        A.   I first have to look exactly what -- where the information is on

 8     what you gave me.  Can you give me a moment?

 9             Yeah, have I it here.  The Senjak barracks was the information

10     given to me was on rear logistic headquarter with only 40 soldiers

11     manning these facility during artillery attack.  So there was some

12     administrative offices, bakery, clothing and food supply.  That all in

13     all brings me to the fact that, of course, this is military stuff,

14     military personnel but if you look to the whole of the setting, to the

15     whole of the operation, 40 logistical soldiers cannot bring any -- any

16     direct danger to an attacks forces that wants to attack the city or wants

17     to take control of the city.

18             For that reason, I came to the conclusion it is a military target

19     but of very low value.

20        Q.   And can you then explain to the Chamber why you indicated that

21     this facility should not have been attacked with artillery on the 4th of

22     August?

23        A.   It's the same as we discussed before.  It's surrounded on various

24     sides, up to the north as well, by civilian-populated areas.  The

25     information was given to me that 15.000 people were in Knin on that day.

Page 14376

 1     So the risk is very serious, that when you start attacking the barracks,

 2     that you will inflict damage to the civilian population as well.

 3             Besides that, attacking these buildings, first of all the

 4     military target to me is a low-valuable target.  So taking out of the

 5     target doesn't bring anything directly to the success of the operation;

 6     and secondly, these are again strong buildings, so if you want to destroy

 7     taking out those 40 soldiers in those building you need to gain a lot of

 8     artillery ammunition to do that with the risk we described before of

 9     injuring, damaging property and people.

10        Q.   Now, if there were trucks carrying logistical supplies or even

11     carrying weapons inside of this facility on the 4th of August would that

12     change your opinion that it should not have been attacked with artillery?

13        A.   In, itself it changes if these trucks especially with weapons

14     would be available, it would change something in the possible value of

15     the target.  But again taking the risk that you tried to take out some

16     trucks inside the barracks with artillery, opposite the fact that you

17     have the risk that you bring a lot of damage to a civilian area would

18     bring me to the conclusion that I would try to -- to see whether these

19     trucks are staying there so that the weapons are not used by any troops

20     at all; and when they are moved, I would try to see that I could attack

21     them on a place where there is -- much less problem maybe outside the

22     city or on an abandoned road where you can try to attack and destroy

23     those moving -- or moving trucks.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. RUSSO:  Mr. President, this is probably a good time for a

Page 14377

 1     break.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  It is it, Mr. Russo.  But let me go back again for

 3     one minute to the -- to the last photograph.

 4             I asked you, Mr. Konings, what would be the distance and you said

 5     less than 100 metres.  Now, let me -- and you told us that it should not

 6     be attacked by artillery.

 7             You earlier told us that if you have an air-burst that the area

 8     covered by a 120-millimetre mortar projectile, 120-millimetre projectile

 9     would be 2.000 square metres.  Now just for me to -- if I would therefore

10     be able to hit that building well, let's say, within 40 metres of it so

11     that makes 60 metres remaining for the distance of 100 metres, then if it

12     would be circular, the area covered and it usually will not be circular

13     but -- then I would have to think of 60 metres remaining.  60 metres in a

14     circle surface being a little bit over 10.000 square metres.  I would

15     then find for a 120-millimetre projectile, I would -- in order to be --

16     to effectively injure or kill people, I would need an area far larger,

17     and you said that 2.000 metres was where it would cause -- have a real

18     effect.  So not one piece of shrapnel flying exceptionally far, but

19     that's where the real damage is done.

20             Now, for 60 metres as radius, I would have an area of 10.000

21     metres which is five times the 2.000 metres you said.  Could you help me

22     to better understand what the real risk was of persons being injured or

23     killed at that distance, of 60 metres?

24             THE WITNESS:  First of all, Your Honour, we are now talking very

25     theoretically about the explosion of one projectile.  If you would attack

Page 14378

 1     those barracks, if you value that as a military target, and if you know

 2     the strength of the building, and in case you choose to use artillery for

 3     that for combatting the target you would use much more than one

 4     projectile.  That means automatically that the chance that in the area

 5     between the two buildings, the civilian building on the one hand and the

 6     HQ at the other hand, more projectiles will falling.

 7             So there will be not one explosion.  Several projectiles will hit

 8     the building.  Several will be at the back side of the building at the --

 9     well, away from the civilian building and others will fall between but --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  May I interrupt you a second.  I try to be a very

11     cautious commander; so knowing that civilians will living at the other

12     side of the building, I'm targeting at a distance of 60 or 80 metres in

13     the opposite direction and with the intention to adjust fire, once I have

14     observed where the projectiles landed.

15             Could you include this in your --

16             THE WITNESS:  That is, of course, a possibility to do, that you

17     keep -- try to keep the artillery fire on the safe side in comparison

18     with the civilian population.  But you never can be sure that no rounds

19     will fall further than you -- than your intention is.  Besides that, if

20     you keep the artillery fire on the safe side of that building, the effect

21     that you will achieve on that building, I don't know what the effect

22     should be, either neutralisation or destruction, it will be less because

23     the bigger part of the projectile will either -- will not hit the

24     building so the effect that you want to achieve will be less.

25             That is it a possibility.  The risk will still be there that some

Page 14379

 1     rounds will fly further than your intention is, and I come back to my

 2     most important effect that you achieve by targeting those buildings with

 3     artillery is the psychological effect because it doesn't -- it doesn't

 4     make any -- any difference whether the rounds are falling left, right,

 5     plus, minus from this building, the civilians in that area, in a wide

 6     area, and I mean a really wide area, even kilometres away will be

 7     panicked.  They will be caused chaos because you don't know where the

 8     rounds are falling, to whom they are addressed, and what is happening;

 9     and that may be the most important thing that a commander -- no, I have

10     to rephrase that.  That is the most important thing that a commander has

11     to think about in judging whether he should use artillery - yes or no -

12     against the value of a military target.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that answer.

14             We'll have a break and resume at a quarter past 4.00.

15                           --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, you may proceed.

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

19        Q.   I'd like to move now to the ARSK HQ which you discuss at

20     subsection c vii of your addendum, that we can find ... that's this

21     facility here in the middle between the top and bottom red dots.

22             Now in your addendum, Colonel Konings, you do not specifically

23     state that you consider this to be a military target.  So first I'd ask

24     you to clarify for the Chamber whether you consider the ARSK HQ to be a

25     military target.

Page 14380

 1        A.   I do think that you can designate that to be a military target.

 2        Q.   And based on the information which you were provided, can you

 3     explain to the Chamber what your assessment is of the value of that

 4     military target on the 4th of August?

 5        A.   Well in itself, an overall HQ in the Ministry of Defence to me

 6     seems to be a high-valuable, high-valid target, high-priority target to

 7     call it like that.  So in itself, attacking such a target or trying to

 8     neutralise or destroy such a target seems to me to be a regular military

 9     act to do.

10        Q.   And you then explain why you say that it should not have been

11     attacked by artillery on the 4th of August.

12        A.   Well, it comes back to what we have been discussing before.  It

13     is in a very densed built infrastructure area where the possibility of

14     the presence of -- of civilians is very likely.  That's not one thing.

15             The other thing is that the building that was showed to me where

16     the HQ and the Ministry of Defence is located seems to me to be a very

17     strongly-built, multi-storage building.  So if you want to achieve a

18     certain effect, and I don't know what effect Croatian forces wanted to

19     achieve there, that was not in my information, I think it is highly

20     unlikely or even impossible that you can destroy such a building with the

21     use of artillery, unless you start using maybe more than 100 rounds, and

22     even then I doubt that can you destroy the building.  You will have

23     damage.  You will have a part of the building being neutralised but

24     seeing the fact that a HQ will not being on the top floor - it's the same

25     discussion that we had before - it will be in a protected area in this

Page 14381

 1     building somewhere in the lower floors or even in the basement.  So it is

 2     just impossible to bring any effect to an important target somewhere

 3     headed in this building with the use of artillery.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  And looking at this photograph here of the building

 5     and seeing the proximity of the buildings across the street and from your

 6     review of the aerial photograph, the buildings around there, can you give

 7     the Chamber an idea of the risk that firing artillery projectiles at the

 8     HQ, what's the risk that the projectiles themselves will strike the

 9     buildings across the street or further down the street?

10        A.   Well, as you can see on the photograph it's a -- it is not such a

11     wide street.  It is it not an alley.  It is a distance of well, I

12     estimate that less than at least 50 metres, 40 metres maybe.  It's a

13     normal, regular two-lane street with a sidewalk.

14             Projectiles not hitting the HQ but hitting street will be able to

15     produce a lot of casualties or damage to infrastructure, but especially

16     casualties.  Because of the fact that if you see that some of the

17     buildings are rather high so the blast will be -- the pressure will be

18     even higher than when you have an explosion more in the open.  I have

19     witnessed unfortunately such an effect in Sarajevo where we had more or

20     less the same situation as here where one mortar projectile fell in

21     between two rather high buildings and killed 40 people on the spot and

22     that was just talking about one projectile.

23             So I can imagine -- first of all, I can imagine that this target

24     is a high-value target for any attacking force because it hides a HQ, it

25     hides -- it has in itself a Ministry of Defence, but the likelihood of

Page 14382

 1     hitting civilian population and sheer impossibility in bringing

 2     structural harm to this type of buildings and their inhabitants bring me

 3     to the conclusion that artillery is not the proper thing to use here.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Now, referring back to your expert report and we

 5     don't need to bring this up but for reference it's at section 1 c, you

 6     state that one of the purposes of artillery support is to:

 7             "Disrupt the enemy/opponent command and control system his combat

 8     support means and his capacity/ability to execute the operation for a

 9     longer period?"

10             Now wouldn't the destruction or neutralisation of this command HQ

11     disrupt the ARSK's command and control system?

12        A.   I'm quite sure that it will influence any compatibilities of the

13     army when highest headquarter is taken out of action.  That doesn't

14     matter from which origin that headquarter is, either it is NATO or

15     Netherlands or Croatian.  I don't think that doesn't matter.

16             But in the military chain of command, lower headquarters at the

17     beginning of an operation know what they have to do and will be able to

18     operate, to take the operation further.  I do not have any insight in the

19     morale affects of destroying any higher headquarter because it is also

20     known that when you take out the highest commander or a high -- a

21     minister or minister president that can have such a morale effect on

22     troops in the field that they stop fighting.  That's a possibility.  But

23     that differs from situation from situation, that differs from country to

24     country, it can also have the opposite effect:  One should take out the

25     highest commander.  Troops can be more determined to defend their own

Page 14383

 1     case.  So that is speculating on an outcome of what were to happen.

 2        Q.   Now, Colonel Konings, if one or even possibly two shells struck

 3     this building, in your opinion, would that disrupt the ARSK's command and

 4     control system?

 5        A.   Well, that is hard to say.  I assume that the bigger part of the

 6     RSK facilities building up of the command post will be in a protective

 7     part of this building, will not be on the high floor, on the top floor,

 8     or on the ceiling.  The only thing you might hope to damage, or in any

 9     other case, to destroy may be some aerials that can be on a roof which

10     you use for radio communication.  But I'm quite sure that such an

11     important headquarters has more means to communicate with its lower

12     commands in the field, that they will not rely on only one system of

13     radio communications.  They probably have double communications, make use

14     of land lines of all types of things that you can think about.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Let's now discuss the RSK telegraph and post office.

16     And this you address at section 2 c 14 of your addendum.

17             And let me just see here.

18             Now, you indicate in your addendum that this is not a military

19     target and should not be attacked with artillery.  And in forming that

20     opinion, Colonel Konings, did you consider that the ARSK might

21     potentially have made use of the communication facilities which were in

22     this building?

23        A.   Yes.  That's a thought that crossed my mind.  But it's still --

24     but then it is still my opinion it is from origin a civilian structure, a

25     civilian part of the infrastructure.  Post and -- telegraph and post

Page 14384

 1     offices are civilian things, are part of the civilian society.

 2             So taking them out, first of all, without any presence of

 3     military in there or military use is, I think, not the right way to do.

 4     I may call, it is attacking a civilian target.

 5             Besides that, commanders have to take into account that when you

 6     are able to destroy such an infrastructure, you destroy an important

 7     piece of the whole society; and you might want to use that infrastructure

 8     later on after the operation is finished yourself.

 9             When -- not only that is important but when you destroy it, you

10     deny the civilian population in the area once the conflict is over - and

11     we all hope that a conflict finishes somewhere - you destroy a vital

12     piece of infrastructure and that are all things that have you to take

13     into account when you designate something as a target, yes or no.

14             The fact that these facilities may be used by military, to my

15     opinion, doesn't change immediately to a full, valuable military target.

16     Beside that, the area -- it is in an area with normal houses, civilian

17     houses besides it which brings you they are close to each other,

18     absolutely close to each other, as you can see; so it brings a high risk

19     of collateral damage.  And as a last point, I doubt that you can bring

20     any level of destruction to this building.  You might again be able to

21     damage the aerial that is on the roof, but you -- I doubt that you can

22     destroy there building in such a way that are you not able to uses any

23     land line afterwards you have done the shelling.

24        Q.   And judging from the size of the building there, as you can see

25     relative to the cars out in front of it and the proximity as you indicate

Page 14385

 1     of the civilian buildings around it, what's the likelihood that you be

 2     able to hit this particular building with artillery without any

 3     projectiles landing on the buildings next to it or behind it?

 4        A.   Well, I think that is quite impossible.  It is depending on -- on

 5     the accuracy of your systems that you have.  But I think that using the

 6     average system in a range of between 105 and 155 that you will have a

 7     very large chance that you will -- that will you hit or at least inflict

 8     damage to one of the buildings at the left or the right side of the

 9     telegraph and telephone building.

10        Q.   Thank you.  And with respect to the railway communication centre

11     which you address at 2 c 13, and that I believe is in this building here

12     that -- where you can see the cursor moving.  I don't have a particular

13     photograph of that.

14             But in any case, would your answers --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  For the record, it will not be easy to know exactly

16     where the cursor was moving, if it ...

17             MR. RUSSO:  Perhaps if we can describe it as the building --

18     well, the red dot immediately to the south of the main railway station

19     moving to the left as we view the photograph, it's the first building as

20     you cross the street, which is to the left of that red dot.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  May I take it that you consider to be south

22     downwards?  Which appears not to be the case in this --

23             MR. RUSSO:  That's correct, Your Honour.  I believe --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  You could then try to describe it again but now with

25     the ...

Page 14386

 1             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, from the main railway station moving immediately

 2     west, you find are a red dot and from there moving immediately north once

 3     you hit the first street the main railway station is the building

 4     immediately across that street.  And I believe this is the building which

 5     was identified as the railway communication centre.  I'm sure counsel

 6     will correct me if I am wrong.  But in any case --

 7        Q.   Colonel Konings, would your answers be the same with respect to

 8     the use of artillery against this particular building and the

 9     communications facilities which may have been inside of it?

10        A.   I don't think I have anything to add to my previous answer.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Moving now to the RSK power distribution centre which

12     you address at 2 c 16.  And that is it this facility that we see on the

13     screen.

14             Now can you please explain to the Chamber why you state that this

15     is not a military target and that it should not be attacked with

16     artillery.

17        A.   Well, it is a -- to my opinion in the description that was begin

18     to me it is a purely civilian target.  It supplies power for the civilian

19     society, powers for civilian infrastructure.  So I don't see any reason

20     to take that out because military installations, military forces will use

21     their own power supplies.  They have mobile generators that they can use

22     besides that.

23             If you take out such power station, you might loose for a longer

24     period power supply in that region; and I don't think that's the thing to

25     do and not to decide for a military commander to take that -- that such

Page 14387

 1     kind of power supplies out because you deny the civilian population the

 2     use of appropriate means to build up their life again.  There is no

 3     military necessity to take it out, that building out because it is a pure

 4     civilian installations.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, could I ask a few clarifying questions.

 6             Now -- and I'm also addressing you to some extent.  You said

 7     there is no military necessity.  Even if there is no military necessity

 8     it might bring some advantage even if you might have achieved that

 9     advantage in a different way.  Another matter you just said, Well, the

10     military will use their own power equipment.

11             Well, let's just assume that that is damaged by other means of

12     attack, and the military are only too happy that they have still got the

13     civilian power supply and can use it, and perhaps in circumstances here

14     where it is not just military in the field but in -- in a civilian

15     environment, that they may easily use that, for example, and I'm

16     referring to one of your previous answers, in relation to the telephone

17     company.  You say, Even if it is used by the military well, that wouldn't

18     change anything.

19             Let's just assume that it was -- and the data do not give a lot

20     of information about that, that land lines were still frequently used in

21     this context by the military, and they were using power supply.

22             Now, do you say it is prohibited, or do you say it doesn't bring

23     you sufficient advantage by saying it's not militarily necessary?  I'm a

24     bit lost with the criteria used in relation to questions and answers

25     because we are dealing here not with what would have been the best

Page 14388

 1     military way of taking Knin.  We're dealing here with an indictment

 2     brought against three accused for having committed crimes.

 3             It's not entirely clear to me at this moment to what extent we're

 4     really touching upon what should be our focus, what should be our core

 5     attention, and to what extent we're talking about trying to accommodate

 6     concerns for psychological inconvenience to civilians.  I'm just trying

 7     to understand fully what our focus is at this moment.  It is not entirely

 8     clear to me, Mr. Russo, and it's -- you certainly will understand,

 9     Mr. Konings, that we are not here in a military class how to do the best,

10     but we're here because we're having three indicted persons before us who

11     are charged with crimes.

12             So therefore I would very much like to have a focus on that and

13     not to mix up matters, what would be the best way to do it; but we're

14     talking about what was prohibited or what was not prohibited.  And if you

15     say it would not make it impossible to use any land line anymore, that's,

16     of course -- if that would be the criteria that all land lines should be

17     destroyed in order to make it an acceptable attack within those means

18     then, of course, I'm a bit lost as far as criteria are concerned.  This

19     is perhaps not a question but an attempt to get both questions and

20     answers focussed again on what really matters in this courtroom.

21             Mr. Russo.

22             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Perhaps I can ask a few

23     questions of the witness to lay some foundation for the reason we're

24     approaching it in this fashion.

25        Q.   Colonel Konings, in order to attack a particular target with

Page 14389

 1     artillery -- well first, let me ask it another way.  Would it be

 2     prohibited in your understanding of the laws or customs of war to attack

 3     a facility which -- of which no military use is being made?

 4        A.   Well, to be honest, I don't have that answer.  I don't know

 5     whether this is prohibited or not prohibited.  I am not a legal guy.  I

 6     try to explain how we in Netherlands and in NATO approach these aspects,

 7     the questions you ask me.  And there are enough examples, unfortunately,

 8     around us where we see that all types of power supplies, power supply

 9     stations, or even civilian targets are attacked by military means.  But

10     the position that I have to represent here is the fact that we put the

11     civilian population at the first place.  Any operation that you do, you

12     do it between the population and you do it for the population.  So that

13     means that you try -- your obligation is to inflict as less damage as you

14     can do to any population that is in your area of operation.  And for that

15     reason Dutch armed forces and NATO forces have legal advisors in their

16     staff which are exactly aware of what you allowed to do or which you are

17     not allowed to do.

18             In this case, taking this power supply station as an example, I

19     would like to say that all -- no, all the examples, all the targets that

20     we are discussing about is a mixture of partly military use, military

21     precision, military occupation inside a civilian area, no matter what you

22     think about that.  A lot of these infrastructure issues that we are

23     talking about are, in itself, meant to be used by civilians, and also

24     after the conflict.  And that's the reason that I say when you attack an

25     area and when you attack military targets in itself that is valid; but

Page 14390

 1     the value of all the targets in this area, I seriously doubt about,

 2     because hardly any target in this area, no, not any target in this area

 3     as was described by me by the OTP is of any high value.

 4             In the whole city of Knin were less than 500 soldiers.  There

 5     were no defence lines, there were no prepared positions.  There were no

 6     combat troops I try to aim at --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Are these -- are you now --

 8             THE WITNESS:  I try to build up --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let me just interrupt you for one second.  When

10     you say there were no more than 500 soldiers, are you referring to the

11     facts as they were put to you or do you have any --

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So you say in forming your opinion about the,

14     matter we're talking about a city with less than 500 soldiers.

15             THE WITNESS:  To be very clear, Your Honour, I'm talking about --

16     I use the information when I say something here, I use the information

17     that the OTP gave me.  I studied that information and as we have

18     discussed before, I have been in Knin; but I have not been in Knin on the

19     moment that this all happened.  I have been UNMO in Sarajevo but that is

20     a totally different place, and I may have drawn some experience from

21     there.  But that is something else.

22             The point I tried to make in explaining what I'm explaining now

23     is that the combination of the low value of those military targets, the

24     fact that the bigger part of those military targets in the

25     civilian-populated area in combination with the fact that -- especially

Page 14391

 1     the first day of the attack, 15.000 people were still there make it very

 2     likely, very crucial that you consider artillery not to be the most

 3     proper means to use in this area because of its ineffectiveness because

 4     of its inaccuracy and because of the fact there is no real military value

 5     in that area.

 6             And when you say assume that this power station would be used by

 7     the military, well, I'm not quite sure that -- that there are rules that

 8     this is on legal basis that it is then forbidden to destroy, I don't

 9     know.  That's another consideration that have you to make.

10             If the destruction of that power station, if it would be used by

11     the military, would cause the collapse of a defence force of Knin within

12     a few hours time or within a day's time and which would spare a lot of

13     other misery that would be a good consideration then to destroy that

14     building.  Absolutely true.  But you have to consider the fact that when

15     you destroy a power supply station, that you destroy, maybe, for a longer

16     period, a power supply that helps a civilian population to recover from a

17     conflict.  That's what I tried to explain.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

19             Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

20             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

21        Q.   Let's move to the traffic roundabout, and this you address at

22     section 2 c 28 of your addendum.

23             Now, can you explain to the Chamber why you say that this traffic

24     roundabout is not acceptable as a target for artillery?

25        A.   I have to fall in some repetition.  First of all with the

Page 14392

 1     information given to me, there is no direct proof there is any military

 2     presence on that roundabout but, of course, that roundabout can be used

 3     by military troops to cross that.

 4             Secondly, it is again in a rather densed populated area, and a

 5     roundabout is not too large, so the possibility of when you use artillery

 6     against such a roundabout, it is very well present that you hit one of

 7     the buildings or that you inflict damage to people around there.

 8             Once a roundabout or a traffic junction is used by military

 9     forces to cross about that, of course, then it becomes another status

10     because I can understand or I can imagine that that might be the next

11     question.  But seeing the circumstances, that roundabout, I would not

12     choose that roundabout when troops are crossing there to use artillery to

13     try to achieve destruction of troops that are moving around that -- using

14     that roundabout because of the possibility that you inflict damage,

15     severe damage to people that are living around that area.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, where exactly is the roundabout we are

17     talking about?  Could we zoom out a tiny little bit so that we know

18     exactly.  Where's -- I expect a circle in a roundabout.

19             MR. RUSSO:  I understand, Your Honour.  It's this area that I'm

20     moving the cursor over.  I don't know is the Court wants me to again give

21     some reference.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  The only thing, I hardly see any roads there.  But I

23     now see what you mean.

24             MR. RUSSO:  So if the Court will follow me.  This is the main

25     road here, coming across the main railway bridge, crosses the roundabout

Page 14393

 1     and proceeds in this direction, and then another road follows this way.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it is clear to me.

 3             MR. RUSSO:

 4        Q.   Now, Colonel Konings, can you explain to the Chamber whether

 5     there is any military advantage to be gained from firing artillery at a

 6     roundabout when enemy forces are not actually present on that roundabout?

 7        A.   Well, it depends on what you want it achieve in using artillery

 8     against a roundabout.  If you wanted to take that roundabout completely

 9     out so that no military vehicle can use it anymore, that could be the

10     effect that you want to achieve.  Then it totally depends on how the

11     surface of the roundabout is built and what type of ammunition you will

12     use.  Normal tarmac or concrete on a road will be damaged by an exploding

13     120- or 155-shell but not in a way that is unusable anymore.  Doing,

14     destroying a cross-road or a roundabout by means of artillery, you need a

15     lot of rounds for that to make it absolutely un-surfacible [sic].  Seeing

16     the fact that most military vehicles have four-wheel traction or are

17     tractor vehicles they will possibly be able to pass around.

18             Secondly, in this area, they will find another road to -- to get

19     across the city, so they will detour and will found another road.

20             So destroying or neutralising a roundabout or a junction with

21     artillery well, it belongings to the possibilities but you need a lot of

22     rounds for that.  It depends on how the structure of the surface is, and

23     I would be against it because you will need lots of ammunition in this

24     civilian-populated area.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Let's move now to the Tvik factory, and this you

Page 14394

 1     address at subsection c 20.

 2             Now, you indicate with respect to the Tvik factory:

 3             "Targeting this area with artillery is highly unadvisable and can

 4     cause substantial collateral non-proportional damage to the civilian

 5     population.  Although the production of ammunition could be a reason to

 6     do so.  However, the information in Annex A seems to describe that hardly

 7     any activities were noticed before the attack."

 8             First, can you explain to the Chamber why the production of

 9     ammunition would be a reason to attack the Tvik with artillery?

10        A.   Well, an ammunition factory is clearly an important military

11     target depending on what is produced and if it has production on that

12     moment, but a military ammunition factory is a military target.

13     That's -- there is no question about that.

14        Q.   And if the ammunition -- if this facility was in fact producing

15     ammunition, if that ammunition was not being actively moved out of the

16     facility and sent to enemy troops on the front lines on the 4th of

17     August, can you explain to the Chamber what the military value would be

18     of attacking that facility with artillery?

19             MR. KEHOE:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  I would ask for foundation

20     for that question.

21             MR. RUSSO:  I'm putting a hypothetical to the witness which

22     doesn't require foundation.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  No, there is a lot of hypothesis in the testimony of

24     this witness.

25             MR. RUSSO:  On top of that the fact, Your Honour, that there has

Page 14395

 1     been no evidence that ammunition was being produced.  In fact, there has

 2     been evidence that nothing was being produced.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, to the contrary.  There is evidence

 4     that shortly before this attack -- as a matter of fact in July of 1995,

 5     there was a video played - and we will pick it up - of the General for

 6     the ARSK walking through, talking about the Tvik factory making military

 7     supplies for the army.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I think as a matter of fact -- let's not repeat all

 9     the evidence we have on the Tvik factory being active, not being active,

10     what producing exactly.

11             And, Mr. Russo, of course, a question that came to my mind and

12     which here again comes to my mind is if there was no transportation of

13     any ammunition produced - let's just assume that, that ammunition was

14     produced there - would that -- perhaps we should ask the witness.

15             Would you have to wait until you see any movement of the

16     production before you would make up your mind as to what to do, or would

17     you say, Well, if I know that there is production of ammunition I'd

18     rather not wait until they drive out with their lorries and bring it to

19     the front lines.

20             THE WITNESS:  That is of course a consideration that you make,

21     yes.  When you talk about every target and especially about an ammunition

22     target in this case, you try to consider all the factors that give you

23     the decision either to attack it now or attack it later on.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Including that even if there is no

25     transportation at this moment of the --

Page 14396

 1             THE WITNESS:  Including --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- production, it might be there tomorrow.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Including you can take it out as a -- in a factor,

 4     a head of an operation to make sure that that factory will not produce

 5     any projectiles or ammunition anymore.

 6             But that depends also, I think, on the fact that what is exact

 7     produced there, what are the amounts, what is its destination; and in

 8     this case, what is the likelihood of causing such a damage because when

 9     you fire at an ammunition factory it might well blow up and then you have

10     a huge fire explosion, projectiles flying around which can cause a lot of

11     damage to the environment.

12             And considering all those factors together, and given the fact to

13     me by the OTP that there was no production and no transportation visible

14     and seeing the proportions of the whole operation, I said, Well, then

15     since it is in the civilian environment, it is an unadvisable to attack

16     that area with artillery because you might have secondary explosion.  You

17     might cause a lot of extra damage.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

19             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

20        Q.   Moving now to the main railway station and also the main railway

21     yards, and these you address at subsection 2 c 23, can you explain to the

22     Chamber why you say that these should not have been attacked with

23     artillery?

24        A.   Well, we keep focussing, of course, on artillery.  But I come

25     back to my fact that this type of displacement railroads is in itself a

Page 14397

 1     civilian installations.  It is -- that's the first things.  So if you

 2     destroy this and destruction of such an emplacement needs a lot of

 3     ammunition from one time or the other, if you destroy it, it is not

 4     serviceable anymore for nobody, not for yourself and not for anybody

 5     after the operation.  So that is a fact that have you to consider once

 6     you decide to attack such an emplacement, yes, and no.

 7             Besides that, when you start using artillery against such an

 8     emplacement you will need a lots of ammunition to take that emplacement

 9     out of action unless you focus on certain choke points where tracks are

10     coming together, where you can more easy take that out.  But then are you

11     talking about firing at a point target which artillery is not the most --

12     easy thing to use.

13             I'm not saying that it is impossible to attack these emplacements

14     with artillery, but I do think that it is very hard to bring any level of

15     destruction that you might need and take out civilian installations that

16     might be used by either yourself or by others later on.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Let's now move to the ARSK mortar section.  And this

18     you address at subsection c 5, and that was indicated to you as having

19     been located at the school which we see here.

20             Now, you state that targeting this mortar platoon with artillery

21     is a possibility but would not be a high priority, and suppression would

22     be the best effect to be achieved.

23             First, can you explain why you say that attacking this mortar

24     platoon with artillery would not be a high priority?

25        A.   Well, a mortar platoon in itself is a very small target and

Page 14398

 1     mortars operate a few metres from each other.  So it is -- can be

 2     considered to my opinion to be a point target, and point targets in

 3     itself are not the ideal suited to be combated with artillery.  It is

 4     like shooting on a fly with a rifle.

 5             Secondly, mortars when they are fired upon, they are light.  They

 6     are -- they can be very easy pack up and move to another place, so if you

 7     do not take them out of action with the first rounds, they will displace

 8     and go somewhere else and do their work again.

 9             Thirdly, one mortar platoon or one mortar section in the whole

10     context of the operation well, being a commander of a brigade or a task

11     force, I would not really worry about that one mortar section and not use

12     my artillery to try to take them out off action because my artillery are

13     valuable assets.  I need them for other things, for the whole of the

14     operation.  So I cannot see the real value of one mortar section in this

15     moment I have over a whole operation.  I could imagine if on that

16     location was a full-sized artillery battalion located that would be

17     another thing but not a section of mortars of 81-millimetre.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Now moving to the southern army barracks, and this

19     you discuss at section c 4 of your addendum.  And that's actually located

20     on this -- in this area.

21             Now, you identify this as one of the few acceptable military

22     targets, and I'll ask you to explain to the Chamber why.

23        A.   Well, through information given to me and the picture it seems to

24     be in a forested area without the direct presence of civilians, so that's

25     one of the few areas that you could target with artillery.  Having not

Page 14399

 1     seen the infrastructure itself, how the buildings are taken, how they are

 2     built:  Is it brick?  Is it concrete?  And when that's the case, I come

 3     back to what I said.  If you want to destroy troops inside barracks,

 4     inside buildings, artillery not most appropriate means.

 5             But all the other factors here make it a more appropriate

 6     artillery target than all the others that we discussed before.

 7        Q.   And given the information that you were provided regarding what

 8     this facility was being used for, can you give the Chamber your opinion

 9     about what the value would be of attacking this particular facility with

10     artillery?

11        A.   Well, the information given to me is that it was a storage

12     facility for small-arms, medication, and clothing with only five soldiers

13     manning this facility during the attack which brings me to the fact that

14     well, again this is a target that would not bring anything extra to any

15     form of defence of the city of Knin; and being a commander of an

16     attacking force, I would not really worry about the possibilities that

17     those five soldier would have on the effect of my own operation.  And for

18     that reason I would not use my artillery, my scarce and very valuable

19     artillery in trying to take out some of the -- the points of that -- of

20     that barracks.

21        Q.   Now, considering, Colonel Konings, I'll ask you to consider that

22     the remainder of the facility was in fact being used by UN forces on the

23     day of the attack and ask you whether and how that would factor into your

24     calculation about whether or not it was appropriate to fire artillery at

25     that storage facility.

Page 14400

 1        A.   Well, that's a very hard question for me to answer because I'm

 2     not quite sure the way UN forces were looked upon as officially they were

 3     peacekeeping forces, but unfortunately my own experience is that we were

 4     never looked upon as that.

 5             So I don't think I can give a proper answer on that, putting

 6     myself in a position.  The presence of the UN forces should have been

 7     enough not -- should have been enough not to use artillery on that

 8     facility because the UN forces were not involved in the conflict and had

 9     be looked upon as an independent, impartial force which should not be

10     attacked by or being subject of any artillery attack at all.  And using

11     artillery in that area with close proximity of UN forces would have given

12     that risk.  But I do think that is a very tricky issue and -- well, let's

13     leave it at that.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Let's move now to the police station which you

15     address at section c 17.

16             Now, can you explain to the Chamber why you say that this is a

17     target of no military value?

18        A.   Well, the information given to me was that there were ten police

19     officers.  It might have been that they were militarised, so they were

20     part of the military forces being -- occupying Knin, but I can still see

21     no value, no added value of ten police officers with no addition weapon

22     systems in being able to defend in any way or the other the city of Knin

23     in a proper way.  So again I would not bother about those ten soldiers.

24     Again seeing the risk that using artillery against such a facility will

25     cause all the other troubles that we already discussed several times

Page 14401

 1     before.

 2             So it is hardly any military target.  It is -- well, no value for

 3     the whole operation whatsoever.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Now, given -- let me get back to it.

 5             Given the location of the police station which is at the red dot

 6     here on your screen, given its proximity to the surrounding areas which

 7     are civilian-populated areas can you explain to the Court your assessment

 8     of the risk of firing artillery at this building what the risk would be

 9     to the surrounding civilian population what is the likelihood is that

10     they would be struck by artillery projectiles.

11        A.   Well, I can, of course, not predict the exact likelihood.  But as

12     we discussed before the likelihood if -- is there that you will -- that

13     you will inflict damage on civilian personnel in that area.  And that

14     depends totally on the effect that you want to achieve in either

15     destroying the whole police station or neutralising because that dictates

16     the number of rounds that you start using.  Destroying will mean lots of

17     rounds with a high chance that several of them will fall not on the

18     building but on the populated area and neutralising or another effect

19     will cause -- then you will use less rounds, so the effect in the area

20     around it will be less.

21             So I cannot -- cannot be more precise as that.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Let's move now to the RSK president's office and the

23     radio TV and Radio Knin building, and this you address at section c 15 of

24     your addendum.

25             That's the facility in the picture with the tower on top of it.

Page 14402

 1             Now you identify this as a high-value target, and I'd like to you

 2     explain to the Trial Chamber why it is that you nevertheless state that

 3     it should not have been attacked with artillery on the 4th of August.

 4        A.   Well, in itself in the description begin to me, it described is

 5     the office of the president and his staff.  And I can fully imagine that

 6     is designated to be a very high-value target because the loss or the

 7     taking out of a -- of a president of a nation, a country, may cause --

 8     may bring the effect that -- that -- that a state will collapse or will

 9     stop doing things.

10             But again here we have the crucial thing that is a combination of

11     a high-value target in combination with the use of civilian facilities,

12     radio and TV Knin although that can be used for propaganda or that kind

13     of stuff as well.  But the point is that the information was given that

14     the president was not present during the attack.

15             So then one main important reason to attack this building, and

16     I'm not saying attack with artillery, one main important reason to attack

17     this building in order to try to take out the president is taken away

18     with the absence of the president.  Taking out this building, and in the

19     case the president would be dead, taking out the president with artillery

20     is coming back to the arguments that I used.  It is a strong building.

21     The president will not be on the top floor.  He will be in a protected

22     area.  There is a highly likelihood of hitting of at least damaging

23     civilian properties or civilians; so artillery is not the means to be

24     used here again.  Taking out the presidency like that and trying to avoid

25     damage to -- collateral damage needs guided missiles, needs guided

Page 14403

 1     artillery projectiles; and guided missiles - I'm not aware whether they

 2     were available - guided artillery projectiles were - as far as I know -

 3     in 1995 not available, not in any army in the world.

 4             So the choice using artillery against this building is not a good

 5     one, I think, because you cannot achieve the effect that you want to

 6     achieve and have to look for other means if you want to take a president

 7     of a country out.  If you wanted to do that, but that is a political

 8     decision of the parties or the states that are in conflict with each

 9     other.  I'm not the one who should judge about that.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Now, turning to the residential apartment building

11     where the RSK is alleged to have lived and this you address at section c

12     11.  Let me find the area of that.

13             Now, the area being one, I believe, is one of these two apartment

14     complexes.  I'm sure counsel will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe

15     it is this particular one on the end.

16             But in any case, you -- can you explain to the Chamber why you

17     say that this apartment building, even if it contains the president of

18     the RSK, is not acceptable as a target for artillery?

19        A.   Well, it's the same thing I keep repeating over and over is the

20     fact that it is a combination of factors together.  Again it is a strong

21     building.  You do not know if the president is present in which location

22     he is; and if is he there, he will probably be not again on the top

23     floor.  He will be somewhere else.  And seeing that area, seeing that it

24     is a residential apartment you will have the likelihood of -- the high

25     likelihood of inflicting injuries, killings, damage to civilians, and

Page 14404

 1     civilian property.  But the uncertainty that you are even able to do

 2     something about the presence of the president in that area, it is not

 3     artillery that you get a certainly that you take a president or one

 4     person out in such a building with artillery.  You might be able to do it

 5     with other means if you accept the risk that you kill civilian people,

 6     but artillery even thus giving you a chance in achieving the effect that

 7     you want to use.  Again for that you need guided weapon systems that

 8     cause much less collateral damage, that are much more precise, that can

 9     fly through a window or the latest development of precision guided

10     artillery munitions.  But as I stated, before they were not available as

11     far as my knowledge is in that time-frame.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, at this I would move to admit this

14     particular Knin photo presentation.  That's 65 ter 4776.

15             MR. KEHOE:  No objection, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this becomes Exhibit P1265.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted in evidence.

19             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

20        Q.   I'd now like to focus on some of the answers that you gave to

21     specific questions put to you by the OTP in the addendum and these appear

22     in section 3 -- section 3 a i appears on page 4 of your addendum on the

23     English version, page 7 of the B/C/S, and the addendum is P1260, MFI.

24             Now in section 3 a i, you address the question of whether a

25     reasonable commander would have engaged in the artillery attack on Knin

Page 14405

 1     given the information that you were provided about it and you stated:

 2             "The use of artillery seems to be disproportionate especially

 3     during the first 90 minutes of the attack.  One would expect attacking

 4     troops to enter immediate behind this intensive shelling, but the actual

 5     seize of the city took place more than 24 hours later."

 6             And I'd like you to please explain to the Chamber why you say you

 7     would expect the HV troops to have entered Knin immediately behind the

 8     initial shelling?

 9        A.   Well, that's what we call in a military operation preparation

10     fires which are connected to the whole scheme of manoeuvre that you do in

11     an operation.  So the purpose of that is you are using artillery and

12     close air support in direct fire weapons that you have is that you try to

13     weaken certain spots in a defence area where you make your own troops

14     able to get through to achieve their goals in the operation.

15             That means that preparation fires need to have a combination,

16     need to have a connection, with what is happening with the rest of the

17     troops of an operation, so as a brigade force, you attack a defence

18     force, a defence area, you do your preparation fire and connect to that,

19     you start manoeuvering and start following that preparation fire in order

20     to achieve your objectives.  Because if the period between the

21     preparation fire and the attack is a prolonged one, it might be that the

22     enemy gets the opportunity to move back to its own positions and to

23     re-group and to recreate another defence.

24             So the fact that there is first a rather strong preparation fire

25     during 90 minutes and that nothing happens then that there is an

Page 14406

 1     prolonged period of artillery fire with irregular intervals with single

 2     shots with some volleys and that even after that the troops enter the

 3     city gives me well, the -- the idea that I have written down my addendum.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you one clarification there.  You were

 5     asked by Mr. Russo why you would expect the HV troops to enter the city

 6     of Knin immediately after the initial shelling.

 7             You started your answer by saying what is what we call

 8     preparation fires.  So your whole answer is that if the shelling was

 9     preparation fire then you would expect the troops to follow.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Now what if it was not preparation fire?  I mean I'm

12     seeking the basis for your answer because your answer is entirely based

13     on this to be preparation fire.  If it was not, what then remains of your

14     answer.

15             THE WITNESS:  Well, my point is that when you look to the

16     structure of what -- what happened in that period and due to the

17     information that was given to me, is that you find a rather structurised

18     first 90 minutes where artillery fire is heavy, a lot shots are used; and

19     that brings me to the conclusion that that could have a preparation fire

20     in order to weaken the defences, the defences, if any, of a city.

21             And when you do that, you expect that enemy attacking troops

22     follow that preparation fire afterwards because otherwise if you don't do

23     that, if you only use artillery then the enemy -- you give the enemy a

24     chance to re-group and to reconstruct the damages that have been done.

25             And then I don't see a reason why you keep up a prolonged

Page 14407

 1     artillery attack without any manoeuvre action so far on a city where, due

 2     to the information, hardly any troops were available to make any defence.

 3     It makes it all strange to me what happened there.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 5             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

 6        Q.   Colonel Konings, staying with that same answer in section 3 A i,

 7     you also state:

 8             "With the exception of the shelling of two or three military

 9     targets, the use of artillery against the city of Knin is of no direct

10     military essence of limited effectiveness and could have been avoided by

11     entering the city with combat troops from various directions having the

12     information that there would be practically no defence."

13             Now can you clarify for the Chamber what you mean or what you

14     consider to be a lack of defence in the town?

15        A.   Well, the information given to me showed no evidence of any

16     prepared position of roadblocks, of defence lines around or in the city,

17     so I purely base my assumption on what was given by the OTP.

18             Also the fact that the numbers and qualifications of the soldiers

19     present in the city as I said before the information states about less

20     than 500 soldiers, no combat soldiers, only small groups of logistical

21     soldiers, administrative personnel, some staff personnel.  Given that,

22     they are not able to form a defence, a real defence against an attacking

23     force of a certain size.  Those military -- those -- those limited value

24     of all the military targets in the city, the fact that artillery is very

25     ineffective against most of targets because they are in strong buildings

Page 14408

 1     or a populated area brought me to the conclusion - as I was asked to do

 2     by the OTP - that you could have entered the city from various direction

 3     with a strong force like the Croatian forces had available, again,

 4     presented to me by the OTP.

 5        Q.   And would your opinion about that, Colonel Konings, change if

 6     sometime during the 4th of August the evening of the 4th, that is the

 7     first day of the shelling ARSK units which were on the front line were

 8     re-deployed into the areas around Knin in order to defend the town?

 9        A.   Well, of course, an operation can change on any moment in time

10     and military commanders have to take that into account.  So the whole

11     situation could change indeed that reserve forces were moved in to take

12     positions around Knin to defend the city against the attacking force.

13             I haven't seen any information on that from -- from the OTP, but

14     if that happens, then as a commander of an attacking force you have to

15     take your measures and you have to re-evaluate, re-analyse your plan

16     that.  Is it quite sure.  That's quite obvious.

17        Q.   And if there were units re-deployed to the areas outside of Knin,

18     would you then consider it appropriate to shell the targets that we've

19     identified inside of the town?

20        A.   Well, I keep repeating that I don't see any -- any added value of

21     those military targets that were described in the city by the OTP, and

22     not in the first case, not in the -- in the situation that you described

23     to me now.  I would rather see then that the positions of the troops that

24     were taking positions in the area around Knin would be attacked by

25     artillery because that is an appropriate thing to do if you have a change

Page 14409

 1     of defence position of defence lines then that is the first priority that

 2     you start attacking with artillery either to prevent that even defence

 3     positions are taken, or once they are taken that you try to destroy them,

 4     or at least neutralise them in order that you can keep up your own

 5     attack.

 6        Q.   Regarding your statement that --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo.

 8             MR. RUSSO:  I'm sorry.

 9        Q.   Regarding your statement that combat troops should have been used

10     to take Knin, did you consider the difficulty of close fighting even

11     against a small number of enemy troops in an urban area?

12        A.   Yes, I consider that because operating in urban environment is

13     one of the difficult things to do.  Due to the presence of civilians, due

14     to close environments, due to the very difficult circumstances, the other

15     effect that weapon systems have inside cities like I described

16     [indiscernible] all other weapon systems have to be used in another way.

17     You have no long sides, you have short sides, you have very chaotic

18     situations even for trained military; so I fully realise that entering a

19     city is a very tricky thing to do.

20             I'm not saying that you should avoid that and there are cases

21     that have you to do that in order to control that city.  But given the

22     fact here and again I base my assumptions on what the OTP presented to me

23     that there were only those very small numbers of RSK troops inside the

24     city, I have no information of strong defence forces, roadblocks, or

25     whatever you can use as defence, and know you can use every house as

Page 14410

 1     defence - I'm quite aware of that - and of course those 400 soldiers

 2     could have tried to defend the city on certain spots.  But if you compare

 3     that strength, their strength and if it's not an organised strength

 4     against the strength of a mechanized larger unit ever nearly 2.000 people

 5     with main battle tanks infantry available then I do think that the

 6     possibility is there to enter the city from various sides.  And I know

 7     that the attacking force had to take the risk in casualties on their own

 8     side.  But in doing so, you could have avoided a lot of destruction or a

 9     lot of the use of artillery fire at -- in preparation of that operation.

10     And that's an assumption that a commander has to make between maximum

11     force protection of his own force and taking casualties in order to end a

12     battle as soon as possible because the military trade is not the most

13     easy one in the world, and taking casualties on your own side belongs to

14     that.  And that is an assumption, a decision that every commander has to

15     take on every moment of an operation.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Now, in section 3 a i you further stated:

17             "The 4th Guards Brigade that had received the order to take

18     control of the city counted around 1900 personnel and can be clarified as

19     a larger combat unit capable of taking control of the city by means of a

20     fast, well coordinated and controlled action.  Doing so, collateral

21     damage to civilians and their property could have been minimised as much

22     as possible."

23             You also mentioned in your previous answer that possibly 500

24     troops in the town of Knin defending against an attacks force of

25     approximately 2.000.  I'd like you to explain to the Court where you got

Page 14411

 1     the information that the 4th Guards Brigade numbered around 1900

 2     soldiers?

 3        A.   That was in the information that I was given by OTP.

 4             MR. RUSSO:  And if we could, Mr. Registrar, please have

 5     65 ter 4684, please.

 6        Q.   For your information, this appears at tab 11 of your binder.  If

 7     we could focus on the lines 1 through 4 in the column on the immediate

 8     left-hand side, focus on the rows 1 through 4.  Colonel Konings, do you

 9     recognise this as the document which you were provided by the OTP?

10        A.   Yes, I recognise it.

11        Q.   And is this why you got the information that approximately 1900

12     troops made up the 4th Guards Brigade?

13        A.   Yes.

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

15     admission of 65 ter 4684.

16             MR. KEHOE:  No objection, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1266, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  P1266 is admitted into evidence.

20             Mr. Russo, I'm looking at the clock could you find a suitable

21     moment.

22             MR. RUSSO:  I believe this is one, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             Then we will have a break, and we will resume at ten minutes to

25     6.00.

Page 14412

 1                           --- Recess taken at 5.31 p.m.

 2                           --- On resuming at 5.54 p.m.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, please proceed.

 4             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And, Your Honour, before I

 5     move on to the next topic, I wanted to make clear to the Chamber because

 6     I understand there may be some problems locating the particular areas

 7     that we looked at on the last video presentation.  But if the Court

 8     refers to Exhibit P1261 MFI, these were the terms of reference which were

 9     provided to lieutenant-Colonel Konings, including in the annexes to those

10     terms of reference is a map of Knin with each one of the locations

11     identified by number which corresponds to the information in the annex

12     hypothetical to the name of that location and the information provided

13     regarding that particular location.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And P1261 MFI is what, Mr. Russo?

15             MR. RUSSO:  Those were the terms of reference which the OTP

16     provided the hypothetical facts, the maps, and a few artillery orders.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, yes.  That's the -- yes.

18             MR. RUSSO:

19        Q.   Now, Colonel Konings, I would now like to review some of the HV

20     artillery documents which you specifically addressed in your addendum.

21             MR. RUSSO:  If we could please have, Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 4511.

22        Q.   Colonel Konings, you'll recall that this document was a regular

23     report of the TS-4 artillery group, commanded by Captain Bruno Milin.

24     This is a report dated 4th of August at 1300 hours.  And for the

25     Chamber's reference, this is addressed in the addendum at section 6 a,

Page 14413

 1     which appears in the English on page 6 and B/C/S on page 10.

 2             If we could please move to the second page of this order.  And

 3     focussing on the entry for 0630 hours where it indicates that five

 4     projectiles from a 130-millimetre gun were fired at the hospital in Knin.

 5             And, Colonel Konings, I'd like you to please tell the

 6     Trial Chamber whether you believe this to reflect a lawfully use of

 7     artillery against this hospital?

 8        A.   Well, I honestly think I'm convinced you should not use any

 9     weapon systems at all against a hospital.

10        Q.   Can you explain to the Chamber why.

11        A.   I do think that that a hospital is a protected civilian

12     installation and should be free of any war combat activities, no matter

13     how you call it, so it should not be used -- no weapon system should be

14     used against a hospital.

15        Q.   And supposing, Colonel Konings, for the sake of argument, that

16     there was an enemy tank or an enemy troop position located in the area

17     near the hospital, would that change your opinion?

18        A.   No, it would not change my opinion.

19        Q.   And can you explain why it wouldn't change your opinion.

20        A.   Well, first of all, the destination of that facility is not

21     changed.  It is still a protected -- protected civilian installations

22     where wounded people should get comfort and should be treated.  The mere

23     fact that an enemy or an opponent places a weapon system and it doesn't

24     matter whether it is a tank or a mortar system in such a proximity of

25     the -- of a hospital, is - to my opinion - also a very illegal act to do

Page 14414

 1     that because doing so you deliberately place weapon systems in the

 2     vicinity of a protected installation and you can count on the fact or you

 3     may recognise the fact that the opposing party will try to take those

 4     weapon systems out.

 5             As the other party, you may -- have you to realise that when you

 6     start using weapon systems against enemy tanks or other system close to a

 7     hospital that you are going down a road that you might not want to go

 8     because you -- you will have the possibility to inflict damage to this

 9     protected facility, so you should not make the same mistake or the same

10     error as your opposing party has made by involving combat systems or

11     weapon systems with a protected civilian area.

12             So you have to find other solutions to take out the tank is that

13     in the vicinity of a hospital, and the fact is also there that -- I know

14     that is a hypothetical question but one tank is not a direct threat for

15     your own operation.

16        Q.   Now if indeed this artillery group had fired at something at or

17     near the hospital, is that something that you would expect to be

18     reflected in an artillery report?

19        A.   Well, I would from every fire, from every fire for a fact that an

20     artillery unit does, I do think that -- that commanders need to know what

21     the effect is, so what has been achieved by using an artillery effect for

22     a fire against a certain area.  And that doesn't matter to which target

23     you refer.  For the purpose of achieving the objectives of an operation,

24     you need to know what effects you have achieved by using artillery

25     because that's essential.  If you do not achieve the effect that you want

Page 14415

 1     to achieve you might be willing to repeat that effect for fire, or you

 2     might be willing to choose another weapon system in order to reach the

 3     effect that you want to achieve.

 4             So having a report, what effect you have achieved in using

 5     artillery against a specific target is essential for a commander to know

 6     how his operation is -- whether his operation is successful, yes or no.

 7        Q.   And does the lack of any information in this report regarding the

 8     effects any of these projectiles indicate to you about what the aim of

 9     this firing was?

10        A.   Well, no, this report not only specific talking about the

11     hospital, this report is a summary of timings and number of projectiles

12     and types of artillery pieces used against a certain area or against a

13     target.  It doesn't tell me as an artillery man or as a commanding

14     officer not anything.  So I can see no added value to this document.

15        Q.   Let's move to the entry for 0800 hours where it indicated that

16     six projectiles from a 130-millimetre gun were fired at a residential

17     area in Knin.  And I'd ask you to please provide the Trial Chamber with

18     your opinion as to whether or not you consider that to a be a lawful use

19     of artillery.

20        A.   As I said before, it doesn't tell me anything.  It just states

21     the fact that there were six rounds fired at a residential area in Knin.

22     There is no effect, there is no result, there is no purpose; so I don't

23     have any information about that.  The only fact is that a residential

24     area gives you the information that it might be an area where still

25     civilian people are living, are working, are doing their things, or

Page 14416

 1     trying to get away; so the chance is there -- that there is collateral

 2     damage done.  But this specific document doesn't give me any information

 3     on that whatsoever.

 4             In the same place, it could have been that some enemy vehicles

 5     were in the vicinity of this residential area which triggered the firing

 6     of the six projectiles.  But I do not have that information.

 7        Q.   And taking that example, if there were some enemy troops inside

 8     of a residential area would you then consider it appropriate to fire

 9     artillery into that residential area?

10        A.   Well, you specifically state inside the residential area that

11     makes it even more impossible to use artillery against it.  Deciding on

12     where they were in the residential area, what the construction of the

13     residential area is that are all factors that you need to take into

14     account before you even decide to use artillery or any other weapon

15     system.

16             So it is very difficult to -- to speculate on that kind of

17     information that is now given to me.

18        Q.   Let's move to the entry for 1220 hours.  And this is on the third

19     page in the English and second page in the B/C/S.

20             And the entry for 1220 indicates that eight projectiles from a

21     130-millimetre gun were fired "at Knin."

22             And I'd like you to comment for the Chamber on whether you think

23     it is lawful to simply fire artillery at a town in general.

24             MR. KEHOE:  I would have -- this is obviously a document that the

25     witness said is counting the amount of projectiles without a targeting

Page 14417

 1     system, and I think that that's what the witness said.  Counting exactly

 2     what they're doing without some -- counsel has some additional

 3     information, without that I object.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  If the witness would give a similar comment as to

 5     the last question he would have raised the issue where he said

 6     residentiary doesn't tell me anything at all.

 7             Yes, Mr. --

 8             MR. MISETIC:  There's a more important issue here, Your Honour,

 9     which is that there is a translation error.  That is not what it says in

10     the original at 1220.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me have a look.

12             We have two entries for --

13             MR. MISETIC:  I believe it's the entry above the one that says

14     the ten projectiles at 1240, which is where we are in the English at the

15     top.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we have in the original, I see two entries for

17     1220.

18             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, it's the second entry.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  It's the second entry that we are talking about

20     eight projectiles.

21             MR. MISETIC:  And then I can read what it really says.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  If you read it in the original language then we'll

23     hear the conversation.

24             MR. MISETIC:  Yes.

25             [Interpretation] "At 1220 from T-130, with eight projectiles upon

Page 14418

 1     the bridge in Knin."

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, let me just check one second.

 3             Yes.  It looks as if there's a translation issue, Mr. Russo.  So

 4     would you please rephrase your question, rephrase any reference to this

 5     entry to bridge in Knin.

 6             MR. RUSSO:  Actually, Your Honour, I'll simply ask a different

 7     question with respect to the other 1220 entry which appears.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the four projectile which appears on the

 9     previous page.

10             MR. RUSSO:  Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have the previous page.

12             MR. RUSSO:  No I'm sorry, Your Honour, it is the entry directly

13     above the one Mr. Misetic just read.  Yes, in the English translation.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  In English it would be the previous page, isn't it.

15             MR. RUSSO:  Correct.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we have a look at the previous page in

17     English.

18             Yes.

19             MR. RUSSO:

20        Q.   And there, Colonel Konings, you will see that at 1220 hours four

21     projectiles were fired from a T-130 at Kistanje.  And, again, I'll simply

22     ask you to comment for the Court or for the Chamber as to whether or not

23     you believe it to be a lawful use of artillery to fire artillery at a

24     town in general.

25        A.   Well, taking a -- a town as a general target for artillery

Page 14419

 1     without specification of what you want to achieve there and which targets

 2     you exactly want to hit, I do think that is not the way of using

 3     artillery.  Whether that is unlawful or lawful, I do not think I am -- I

 4     have the capacity to judge that.  I do think that you have the risk that

 5     you target -- the high risk that you target civilian property, civilian

 6     personnel; and I can recall that that is against the humanitarian law in

 7     aiming artillery weapon systems or any weapon systems at unprotected or

 8     even at civilian personnel.

 9             But I have to say that only the statement that four projectiles

10     were fired at Kistanje doesn't say to me anything as I said before.  I do

11     not know the intention.  I can imagine that it is it connected with

12     the -- with the statement in the operational order shelling of cities.

13     But that information is it not here, so everything I say further is

14     speculation.

15        Q.   That was actually my next question, Colonel Konings, as to

16     whether you can tell the Chamber that the entries that you see in these

17     reports are consistent with your interpretation of General Gotovina's

18     order to put downs under artillery fire?

19             MR. KEHOE:  Judge.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

21             MR. KEHOE:  If I may --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  There was no general order to put -- we have seen a

23     line, and, Mr. Russo, I would insist on -- you see that in the last

24     answer of the witness where he is apparently struggling with what it

25     means, he sees on paper because he says, Whether it is lawful or unlawful

Page 14420

 1     I do not know.  And just two seconds later, he says, Firing is against

 2     humanitarian law under those circumstances.

 3             So there are two issues, first, what do these entries here

 4     exactly tell us from a factual point of view; and if we are able to

 5     establish that, then, of course, the next question, whether or not for

 6     witness to answer is whether that would be prohibited under international

 7     humanitarian law, yes or no.

 8             So I haven't seen any order by General Gotovina on paper to shell

 9     cities, but I think we have seen three towns mentioned in an order, and

10     we have paid some attention to that.

11             Would you please be very precise in quoting and referring to

12     other texts.

13             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, if I could first move this document,

14     65 ter 4511, into evidence.

15             MR. KEHOE:  No objection, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1267, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Which is admitted into evidence.

19             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.  And if we could now please have 65

20     ter 4512.

21        Q.   Now, this is a report by the same artillery group,

22     Colonel Konings, and you'll see this is the report which is dated later

23     in time 2000 hours on 4th of August.  You'll see an entry -- if we can

24     look on the first page the entry for 1330 hours.  And if we could also

25     find there in the B/C/S.  And you will see there that it indicates eight

Page 14421

 1     projectiles from a T-130 fired at Knin.  And I think opposing counsel

 2     will agree with me that this is an accurate translation of what appears

 3     in the B/C/S.

 4             And with respect to that, I'll ask you the same question, whether

 5     or not you consider this firing at Knin to be a lawful use of artillery,

 6     as you understand international humanitarian law?

 7             MR. KEHOE:  If I may.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe, I think I asked Mr. Russo to make a clear

 9     distinction between two facts.

10             Perhaps we first would ask do you have any information as to how

11     to understand this entry here that eight projectiles from a T-130

12     millimetre were fired at Knin.

13             THE WITNESS:  As I told you before, Your Honour, it is this type

14     of information, doesn't give me any information at all.  So it just said

15     there were eight projectiles fired at Knin without telling me where and

16     what has happened.  So if they were fired specified against a residential

17     area then it gives me more information, or if it was specified that they

18     were fired against the HQ of the president, it gives me a specification.

19     I cannot say anything on this.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  If there would be no further specifications as what

21     we find here, would you be able to form an opinion about the use of

22     artillery in such a way?  But this is hypothetical.

23             THE WITNESS:  Eight projectiles is referring to a rather small

24     target because with eight projectiles especially in an urban environment

25     as I tried to explain before, you cannot reach a large effect.  You can

Page 14422

 1     reach neutralisation or some interdiction.  That is it something that I

 2     can try to derive from what I read here.  I dont' have any clue - Knin is

 3     a large city - so I don't have any clue where these rounds were falling

 4     or what the effect was that the appropriate command tried to achieve.  It

 5     might have been any effect that you can take out of the box of the use of

 6     artillery fire.

 7             So I don't want to speculate about what -- against which targets

 8     those eight projectiles may have been used.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And if just hypothetically if just an order would

10     have been given - how odd it may have been - fire eight projectiles at

11     Knin.

12             THE WITNESS:  Well, to my opinion, then you get in another area.

13     If you give that hypothetical order then you take willingly and

14     deliberately the risk that those rounds are falling in an area where only

15     civilians are living.  So then I will call it, I will classify it as

16     harassing fire with only one effect, psychological effect on the civilian

17     population.

18             The moment you start specifying where these eight rounds should

19     fall then you get there another direction because then you might specify

20     it to attack with military targets inside a city with all the risk that

21     you take and that we have discussed before.  But that is a decision that

22     a commander in a force takes and in every force, it might be arranged

23     differently on which level commands are allowed to take these decisions.

24     I tried to explain that in NATO only the highest commander can take that

25     decision.

Page 14423

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed, Mr. Russo.

 2             MR. KEHOE:  If I may.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Kehoe.

 4             MR. KEHOE:  Just by way of one clarification, Judge, and I don't

 5     know if I misheard what you said with regard to an order at page 80, line

 6     2 and 3; but this is a report and not an order.  So I wasn't sure if Your

 7     Honour was referring when you used the word order to this document but

 8     this --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I was referring to the hypothetical situation

10     that what we find in this document would be in a similar way be reflected

11     in an order which again is hypothetical entirely.

12             The document in itself doesn't say anything about who ordered,

13     whether it was done by mistake, whether it was -- it doesn't say anything

14     about this.  So there is no misunderstanding about that.

15             Mr. Russo.

16             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

17        Q.   Now, Colonel Konings, you answered His Honour Judge Orie's

18     question about what an order to simply shell or fire projectiles into a

19     town and you said that you would classify that as harassing fire.  Let me

20     ask you if you would consider harassing fire in a town to be lawful under

21     your understanding of international humanitarian law?

22             MR. KEHOE:  If I just may say, Judge, with regard to opinions on

23     the law, I think the witness said that he is not lawyer and has no

24     opinion on what the law is.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, he has given a few opinions on the law, but he

Page 14424

 1     is not a lawyer but what we can ask him whether during his training,

 2     whether -- or during his professional experience, whether he ever was

 3     formed an opinion about whether that was prohibited or allowed.  That --

 4     could we ask him, that's a factual question.

 5             I have rephrased the question it's --

 6             THE WITNESS:  I understand your question completely, Your Honour.

 7             During my education, my training, and my experience formulating

 8     an order like you did before like firing eight rounds randomly into a

 9     city without specifying anything to my opinion and to the opinion that we

10     have in our army, and our habits is it that we don't, that that's

11     prohibited because you should aim at military targets and not use

12     artillery in the way that we are now discussing because of the collateral

13     damage, et cetera, et cetera, that we discussed before.  And I'm not

14     going into the area, whether that is not lawful against any humanitarian

15     law.  In our country, in my army, we are teached not to use artillery in

16     this way.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

18             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.

19        Q.   Colonel Konings, referring back to your original expert report,

20     we don't need to bring it up.  We went through it earlier what you

21     referred to and quoted under section 16 a:

22             "The portion of General Gotovina's offensive operation order

23     directing the artillery to 'put the towns of Drvar, Knin, Benkovac

24     Obrovac and Gracac under artillery fire.'"  I would like your opinion as

25     to whether or not what you read in this report that is on the screen and

Page 14425

 1     in the previous report whether you believe those to be consistent with

 2     your understanding of what has been ordered in the line to put the towns

 3     of Knin --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

 5             MR. KEHOE:  I believe that is just speculation, Judge, what he

 6     believes.  We are asking for an expert opinion at this point and that is

 7     complete speculation without some support.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, let me just re-read the question carefully.

 9             Yes, I think that an opinion about consistency in relation to

10     this doesn't require the kind of expertise the witness brings; and,

11     second, there is a factual shortcoming that the one is part of an order

12     and the other is only a report on fire that was -- artillery that was

13     fired, projectiles that were fired.

14             Mr. Russo, let me just try to understand.  If I say firing at

15     Knin or firing at three towns, whether that -- apart from whether it

16     happened whether that -- there is some consistency the consistency being

17     that there are no further specifics, then even without a thorough

18     military training, I could say that the lack of specifics gives a

19     similarity.

20             Is that what you were seeking to ...

21             MR. RUSSO:  A bit more specifically, Your Honour.  The witness

22     has opined in his expert report that that particular language in his

23     opinion gives the green light to lower commanders to use as he says the

24     effect of harassment at a maximum.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 14426

 1             MR. RUSSO:  He has answered Your Honours question with respect to

 2     what do these reports seem to indicate to you and he says this seems to

 3     be what I would call harassment fire.  I'm simply asking him to link that

 4     up to his understanding of the order.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  One second.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, this question and the possible answers in

 8     the opinion of this Chamber will not assist it in making determinations

 9     it will have to make.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Staying with this particular

12     report if we can move to the entry for 1500 hours where it indicates that

13     18 projectiles were fired from a T-130 millimetre at the general area of

14     Knin -- actually, if we could move to the next page.  Yes.

15        Q.   My apologies, I meant to stay at the first page.  I wanted your

16     opinion as to whether or not you consider the use of artillery against

17     the general area of a civilian-populated town to be lawful?

18             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, Judge --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Does it say anything about a town, Mr. Russo?  Does

20     it say -- we know that Knin is not only a town but ...

21             MR. RUSSO:  But a civilian-populated area, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  A municipality as well.  Let's ask the witness

23     whether he -- in reading this, whether it gives him a clue also in view

24     of his knowledge.  He apparently has been in Knin.  How do you understand

25     this entry; that is, that is that:

Page 14427

 1             "In irregular intervals, a total of 18 projectiles were fired

 2     from a T-130 millimetre at the general area of Knin."

 3             THE WITNESS:  Well, to be as honest as I can be, and I have been

 4     asked by the Court to be that, the word at irregular intervals is already

 5     a step towards the fact that I call it harassing fire because when you

 6     use artillery against military targets, you do it quite recognisable way

 7     like you fire with various guns, various rounds against specific military

 8     target.  And a total of 18 projectiles against irregular intervals -- on

 9     irregular intervals bring me to the feeling, to the idea - and, of

10     course, I do not have the hard proof of that in this case - that this is

11     a random use of artillery against the so-called general area of Knin

12     which can be everything.  It's not confined.  It can indeed be some

13     forest areas.  It can be indeed the military area, but it can be

14     damn-well a civilian area because they are the most in Knin.

15             And by doing so, firing 18 projectiles in irregular intervals

16     against an area where we cannot deny that there are a lot of civilians in

17     there, you advocate here the use of artillery in a harassing way.  There

18     is no proof of that.  It is only a report.  I know that, but it is

19     already ordered in the OP order that we discussed in the beginning that

20     the artillery had to put the town of Knin under artillery fire under

21     shelling also there without any specification without any effect, without

22     any objective to be reached by that artillery.

23             And I have to go back to my own experience being six months

24     inside the city of Sarajevo where exactly the same happened.  There was

25     no military purpose the only purpose of using artillery in this way was

Page 14428

 1     harassing a civilian population with the objective to make them flee, to

 2     get them out of the city, or to harass them or to create chaos or

 3     whatever you want to achieve.  I cannot help it.  I have to say it in

 4     this clear way because that is the connection that I find in using the

 5     word irregular intervals, 18 projectiles in the general area of Knin and

 6     then the connection with the OP order that we discussed before.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

 8             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'd like to move for the

 9     admission of 65 ter 4512.

10             MR. KEHOE:  No objection.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P1268, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  P1268 is admitted into evidence.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.  At this time there's a

16     document I'd like to move into evidence across the bar table.  I don't

17     believe this is an necessity to show it to the witness.  It is a similar

18     report of TS4 artillery group for the following day, 5th of August.  And

19     that is 65 ter 4535.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections from --

21             MR. KEHOE:  I had no notice this was coming across the bar table,

22     but I will take a look at it, and I just reserve if we could MFI it at

23     this point.

24             MR. RUSSO:  It was provided in the list of exhibits to be

25     admitted to the witness.

Page 14429

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the Chamber gave some guidance as how to

 2     deal with bar table exhibits.

 3             MR. RUSSO:  This was also part of the artillery bar table motion,

 4     Your Honour.  I should have mentioned that.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  If that's the case then -- but is then is there any

 6     need to tender it again?

 7             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  If we -- yes.

 9             MR. RUSSO:  I believe the Court's guidance was that those

10     documents were denied admission without prejudice and the Court strongly

11     encouraged the Prosecution to bring them in, in the context of a witness,

12     and that's what I'm attempting to do with this document here.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you would say that you have established the

14     context on the basis of the reports of the previous days.

15             MR. RUSSO:  Correct, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Kehoe.

17             MR. KEHOE:  If I can take a look at it, Judge.  I mean, I have no

18     knowledge this was coming across the bar table --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have it MFI'd.

20             MR. KEHOE:  I don't have a theoretically have a -- I don't know.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have it MFI'd and then we'll hear from you.

22             Mr. Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P1269 MFI'd.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and it keeps that status for the time being.

25             Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

Page 14430

 1             MR. RUSSO:  Actually I had a second document which also comes

 2     from the artillery bar table document motion to move in at this point,

 3     this being the report of OG Sibenik which was the Operational Group to

 4     which this particular artillery group belonged and is relevant to the

 5     damage caused by combat activities if that needs to be MFI'd also that is

 6     fine; or I can simply show it to the Court to establish what I believe

 7     the relevance to be.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- if you could provide the Court with hard

 9     copies one of these days because -- no, if it is MFI'd, we can find it on

10     our computers as well.  But if it is MFI'd, we'll first hear whether

11     there is any objection.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Just MFI it, Judge, I could very well have a glance

13     and not have an objection.

14             MR. RUSSO:  Sure, Your Honour, that is 65 ter 4560.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And that would receive, Mr. Registrar, number.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that becomes Exhibit P1270 also

17     marked for identification.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Mr. Kehoe and other Defence counsel

19     could we hear from you tomorrow whether there is any objection for 1269

20     and 1270.

21             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, yes, Mr. President.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

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

24             I'd like to now have a look at some of the HV target lists.  If

25     we could please have 65 ter 6119.  And for the Chamber's information,

Page 14431

 1     this document is addressed in the addendum at section 6 c which appears

 2     at page 7 of the English, page 11 of the B/C/S.

 3        Q.   Taking a look at this target list, Colonel Konings, you will see

 4     that the first target listed is a church in Knin; and I'd like to you

 5     please tell the Chamber, given your training and experience, what your

 6     opinion is as to whether or not placing a church on a target list is

 7     lawful or a lawful use of artillery?

 8        A.   Well, with my background, it struck me when I saw this first for

 9     the first time that you even find a thing like a church on a target list

10     for artillery because a church is a social, cultural, civilian

11     institution that should be looked upon as a no-fire area.  So it should

12     not be attacked by any military means if at all.

13             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, Judge, and I I'll let the witness -- answer

14     go.  If we have some foundation from the Prosecution as to what church

15     this is and ask the question based on that, given this was HV fire.

16             MR. RUSSO:  Mr. President my question doesn't distinguish between

17     which kind of church, my question is aimed at whether or not any church

18     in the witness's opinion is appropriate to include on a target list.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, is it your view that independent on any

20     circumstances that putting a church on a target list is, under all

21     circumstances, inappropriate; or I'm hesitant to elicit any legal

22     opinions from you.

23             THE WITNESS:  Well, the basic point, the starting point is that

24     you are given the correct status as we look to that, a church should

25     never be on a target list as a starting point.  And if a church is on a

Page 14432

 1     target list then they are very, very valuable and high ordered reasons to

 2     do so.  But the basic answer is, a church should not be on a target list.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Now we -- that's a very general statement.

 4             No, there was another matter apparently raised.  That is, whether

 5     this was a HV target list.  I'm just looking at the document at this

 6     moment.  Could you please, Mr. Kehoe, let me just have a look at the

 7     document, and it says table of identified targets.

 8             Is there any --

 9             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any basis for -- you haven't asked the

11     witness so.

12             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, I can tell the Court that this was a

13     document received by the Office of the Prosecutor from the government of

14     Croatia in response to an a request for assistance for artillery

15     documents.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             MR. RUSSO:  And specific target lists.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  From Croatian target lists.

19             MR. RUSSO:  Correct, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             Is there any further information about it I don't know whether --

22             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, there is.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  There is.  Is it information which could be

24     discussed -- let's first ask, do you know anything about this target list

25     and this church on this list, or do you have any knowledge about that,

Page 14433

 1     Mr. Konings.

 2             THE WITNESS:  I do not have any knowledge specifically about the

 3     church that is the matter here, that is listed here.  But I have a

 4     knowledge about the -- about target lists in general.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we have heard that you -- your starting point

 6     is that churches should not appear on target lists.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Exactly.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We have heard that.  Then I don't think it

 9     would be necessary for the witness to ask -- to ask him to leave the

10     courtroom but this document is, although the witness has no specific

11     knowledge about this document, there seems to be some information which

12     might be helpful for the Chamber to hear.

13             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, we heard from that you it was received in

15     response to a request for assistance from the Croatian government.

16             MR. KEHOE:  There is some additional information about this for

17     clarity sake that the Chamber, I believe, would want to take into

18     consideration as opposed to a hypothetical discussion that a church and I

19     understand General [sic] Konings is just saying, generally speaking,

20     houses of worship should not be placed under attack.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, is the information about the list that it was

22     a Serb Krajina list which got lost in Croatia, or is it about the church

23     itself.

24             MR. KEHOE:  It is it about the church itself.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I would invite the parties to first discuss because,

Page 14434

 1     Mr. Kehoe, with all due respect, of course, you couldn't give evidence on

 2     this matter.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, I invite you to first briefly discuss the

 5     matter with Mr. Russo and to see whether there are any specifics in

 6     relation to this church which would assist the Chamber in evaluating this

 7     document in relation also to the testimony of this witness.

 8             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

 9             MR. RUSSO:  If we could move a bit further down the target list,

10     you will notice that the target which is third from the bottom is

11     hospital.

12        Q.   And I'll ask you the same question, Colonel Konings, given your

13     training and experience, whether or not you believe it is appropriate to

14     include a hospital, any hospital, on a target list.

15        A.   A short answer, no.

16        Q.   Thank you.

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

18     admission of 65 ter 6119.

19             MR. KEHOE:  Mr. President, just I have been told by Mr. Misetic

20     on something in this that the translation is off.  I'm not really clear

21     if I can turn to Mr. Misetic to clarify this.  I don't speak the

22     language.

23             MR. MISETIC:  Yes, Your Honour, I think OTP needs to revise the

24     translation.  The coordinates for each of the targets are one off, and

25     early in the list somebody when they were transposing the numbers in the

Page 14435

 1     English missed one and then misnumbered all the rest of them as a result.

 2             So I think it needs to be fixed -- the translation needs to be

 3     fixed by OTP before it can be admitted.

 4             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, if I could, we're not admitting it for

 5     the coordinates, we're admitting it for the hospital being on the target

 6     list.

 7             MR. MISETIC:  The coordinate will be important later.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Coordinates might be of importance because if the

 9     coordinates attached to the hospital would be coordinates which cannot be

10     in any way -- as a matter of fact, I had on my mind to ask this witness

11     about what the coordinates would mean here because we have usually in

12     a -- in a flat country you usually need two coordinates.  Now it seems

13     that coordinates approximately the same appear under Z which suggests

14     that that might be elevation, for example.

15             Is that correctly understood, Mr. Konings?

16             THE WITNESS:  I think that is correctly understood, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And the target coordinates here, is that a grid

18     system?

19             THE WITNESS:  I assume that this is a grid system.  It might be a

20     different grid system than we use in NATO, but in the basis they are all

21     the same.  They give you an accuracy of the target up to either a single

22     metre or ten metres or 100 metres.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That's dependent on the -- how many digits we have.

24             THE WITNESS:  Yes, whether you use ten digit or eight digit or

25     six digit, yes.

Page 14436

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Do I understand that the Defence will pay further

 2     attention to the target coordinates.

 3             MR. KEHOE:  Absolutely, Judge.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, then I don't have to ask any further questions

 5     in --

 6             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, that's fine.  I don't see why that would

 7     prevent the original B/C/S document from coming into evidence.  We will

 8     simply revise the translation as we have done for others.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It's not even a translation matter.  I do

10     understand, but it is just a matter of putting the right numbers at the

11     right places.

12             May I take it there is no objection against this document as such

13     if the English version is adjusted.

14             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Registrar, could you please assign a

16     number.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours this becomes Exhibit P1271.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  P1271 is admitted into evidence but still needs a

19     better translation to be uploaded.

20             Please proceed, Mr. Russo.

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

22             If we could now have 65 ter 6210.

23        Q.   You'll see, Colonel Konings, at the top here this indicates

24     artillery preparation and the duration being 60 minutes, and you have

25     already offered some testimony to the Chamber about what exactly

Page 14437

 1     artillery preparation fire is.  And I'd like to look at the targets for

 2     artillery preparation.

 3             MR. RUSSO:  And if we can move down to the fourth line there,

 4     the -- the second from the bottom.

 5        Q.   You will see one target listed as a block of flats, and I would

 6     like you to please comment for the Chamber on whether or not you believe

 7     that's an appropriate thing to list on a target with no further

 8     information?

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Judge, that's pure speculation without giving the

10     witness these grid references so that he can find it himself.

11             MR. RUSSO:  The grid references are there.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Russo, Mr. Russo, there is further

13     specifications, the specifications being the references, apparently the

14     grid references or the coordinates.

15             Now, I don't think it makes much sense to ask this question as

16     if -- I mean a block of flats could house everything, isn't it?  So in

17     order as to -- whereas earlier we had no opportunity to better understand

18     what was fired at, here there may be a possibility at least if we do

19     understand the coordinates, to find out whether this block of flats was

20     housing civilians or military offices or police offices.

21             So, therefore, I don't think that it makes much sense to ask

22     whether the description as such which is accompanied by apparently clear

23     grid references whether that would be acceptable or non-acceptable.

24             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you, Mr. President.  In that case, I will

25     simply move to the next page -- actually the third page of the

Page 14438

 1     document --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  May I ask you, has the Prosecution been able to

 3     identify the exact locations here, so that we would know what we might

 4     like to know.

 5             MR. RUSSO:  That will be provided, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then we may know more than we do now.

 7             Please proceed.

 8             Yes, Mr. Kehoe.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  One other issue just considering -- pardon me, Judge,

10     with regard to this document my understanding is that the Office of the

11     Prosecutor has a copy of this document without the redactions that we

12     just saw, the black lines through it.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, as a matter --

14             MR. KEHOE:  It was the page we had just before that.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the previous page.

16             Do you have a copy without redactions Mr. Russo?

17             MR. RUSSO:  I will check if we do, Your Honour.  I'm not sure

18     that those are actually redactions.  They may, in fact, be highlighted

19     things which were copied.  In any case, we will pull out the original and

20     determine whether or not we can upload something that doesn't have those

21     markings on it.

22             MR. KEHOE:  Thank you.

23             MR. RUSSO:  I don't actually know if the original contains that

24     or not, but I will pull it out of the evidence locker and determine that.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If you would try to find such a copy and

Page 14439

 1     upload it.

 2             MR. RUSSO:  If we could magnify the English version a bit.

 3        Q.   Again, the second target listed you'll notice, Colonel Konings,

 4     is a hospital, and I take it that your opinion with respect to the

 5     appropriateness of including this on the target list remains the same?

 6             MR. KEHOE:  Again, Judge.  I objects if we're taking about the

 7     grid references, let's clarify the grid references.  I think we have the

 8     witness's answer concerning theoretically --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.

10             MR. KEHOE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber would not expect the Chamber to change

12     his mind as far as hospitals should appear or not.  I mean it was a

13     superfluous question.

14             But again, Mr. Russo, here we have - at least it appears to me -

15     that there may be an opportunity to really identify in the field what

16     we're talking about, and therefore if it is a hospital then we might find

17     out whether it's a hospital which is still functioning or whether it's a

18     building which was used 20 years ago as hospital and is still called a

19     hospital or whether it is the hospital and then what location exactly --

20             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Your Honour, I do agree --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Wouldn't that be a more useful way of using this

22     document.

23             MR. RUSSO:  Certainly we will connect this up with further

24     evidence to establish to the Court where this particular hospital is

25     located.

Page 14440

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  But may I take it that you have already made an

 2     effort and have already attempted to find out which hospital this would

 3     have been?

 4             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Your Honour, I don't want to offer that

 5     testimony myself and this witness --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  No, it has been done so you know at least have you

 7     an impression for yourself on -- that this was really a hospital.

 8             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Your Honour.

 9             MR. KEHOE:  Outside the presence of the witness, I would like to

10     discuss that particular issue that these grid references have been

11     brought up by the Office of the Prosecutor, and it is in fact a hospital

12     in those grid references.  I would like a good faith basis for at that

13     statement.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  What I -- as a matter of fact, what I would like --

15     the parties to do is to sit together and see whether they agree on the

16     system of coordinates used here, and also to briefly discuss whether they

17     come to the same conclusions apparently -- you have formed an opinion

18     about that, Mr. Russo.  Because if the parties would agree that X 79300,

19     Y 97140, and Z 230 is a specific location, why not agree on that?  Why

20     not present it to the Chamber so that the Chamber can either understand

21     or perhaps not understand what we're talking about.

22             I mean, Mr. Russo --

23             MR. RUSSO:  I'm happy to do that, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Because the witness can't help us out from what I

25     understand.  Yes?

Page 14441

 1             Let's proceed.

 2             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, I would still move for the admission of

 3     65 ter 6120.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And on the assumption that you upload a fully

 5     legible original.  There are no objections.

 6             MR. KEHOE:  As long as we have those redactions, we have no

 7     objection.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours that becomes Exhibit P1272.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  P1272 is admitted into evidence.  But the OTP will

11     take care that -- that a legible original will be uploaded.

12             MR. RUSSO:  Yes, Your Honour.  I have just been informed that

13     those are in fact highlights, so we can upload a more legible version.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

15             MR. RUSSO:  Thank you.  If we could now have 65 ter 6128.

16        Q.   Colonel Konings, this is a coded map which lists various kinds of

17     information in the tables, and the tables that -- which you see on there,

18     one of them includes the list of targets identified on the map.

19             MR. RUSSO:  If we could have the English translation of this

20     brought up.  And if we could move to page 8 of the English translation.

21             And, again, Your Honour, I will simply make the proffer that this

22     was a map which was received by the Office of the Prosecutor in response

23     to a request for documents from the Croatian military archives.

24        Q.   Now, you will see on this target list, Colonel Konings, you'll

25     notice targets 10, 11, and, I believe, 28 list medical stations, and I'd

Page 14442

 1     like your opinion, again in light of your training and experience, as to

 2     the appropriateness of including medical stations on targets, what you

 3     were taught about that and in fact what you teach to others about the

 4     appropriateness of targeting medical stations.

 5        A.   Well, again, my answer can be very short.  First of all, it

 6     doesn't indicate whether it is a military medical station or a civilian

 7     medical station, but basically it doesn't care, because also military

 8     medical stations are designated units, designated parts of the military

 9     organisation, that should not be targeted.  Wounded people are treated

10     there, so they should not be targeted and definitely not be on the list

11     of targets for artillery.

12             MR. KEHOE:  If I may, Judge, this map is from 1993.  It was for a

13     training exercise in 1993 and has nothing to do with Operation Storm.

14             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, if that's the Defence's position.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, then you can -- I don't think, as a matter of

16     fact, that there's any -- if that is relevant, and it may well be

17     relevant, and not to say that sometimes maps keep validity, sometimes

18     not, that's all to be established, it certainly will assist the Chamber

19     in receiving more information about this map.  And, of course, to the

20     extent that the parties can agree on that, it's a map that was made in

21     1993, I've got no idea yet on where --

22             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, the title of the map is Poskok 93.  I'm

23     certainly willing to accept the fact and certainly agree to the fact that

24     it may have been created for an exercise in 1993.  However, we have

25     received additional evidence from the government of Croatia which

Page 14443

 1     indicates that this map was in fact used in Operation Storm.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then share that information with the Defence, see to

 3     what extent you do agree, you do disagree, and then the Chamber would

 4     like to have the matter further explored during the presentation of

 5     evidence.

 6             MR. RUSSO:  That's fine, Your Honour.  We have provided the diary

 7     which indicates that this map was used that was provided to the Defence,

 8     I believe, on 26 November by e-mail but that is besides the point.  I'm

 9     happy to get together with the Defence to discuss that.

10             MR. KEHOE:  And I just have a -- I don't know if it -- two issues

11     concerning this and also the questions along this line, if I could bring

12     it outside the presence of the witness, I would appreciate it, as we come

13     close to the end of the day.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             Mr. Konings, Mr. Kehoe would like to --

16             MR. RUSSO:  I'm happy to break here for the day, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes, yes.  Okay.

18             Mr. Konings, we have to stay for another few minutes but you're

19     free to go, but not after I have instructed you not to speak with anyone

20     about your testimony, whether already given or still to be given, and

21     we'd like to see you back tomorrow, the 15th of January, quarter past

22     2.00 in this same courtroom, number I.

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25                           [The witness stands down]

Page 14444

 1             MR. RUSSO:  I would also like to --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we raise other issues, I'm just trying to --

 3     you said that it was page what of the translation page?

 4             MR. RUSSO:  Page 8 is where this appears of the English

 5     translation of the map, Your Honour, if that's what the Court is asking.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that is what I'm asking.  And, as a matter of

 7     fact, in the original, it is a one-page document.  So I have difficulties

 8     to find in the original where we see what is found in the list of targets

 9     in the translation.

10             MR. RUSSO:  If the Court can see the map, you will see that there

11     are several boxes of text in the map.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Which one is it, Mr. Russo?

13             MR. RUSSO:  I'm not exactly sure.  I believe it's one that is not

14     currently on the screen; it's on the right-hand side of the map.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, we have more there, yes.

16             MR. RUSSO:  And it's these which have been translated, including

17     the text which appears at the top of the map.  All of that is translated

18     into the pages of the English translation.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Just trying to find it.  Oh, yes, I think I found it

20     at the -- yes, at the right-hand top.  It's the one on the right-hand

21     side the second from the top that table, yes.  Thank you.

22             Mr. Kehoe.

23             MR. KEHOE:  [Microphone not activated] ... with regard to this

24     map, and I think you just saw that it said 1993 on the map, just scroll

25     down on there, I think it was over on the right-hand side we saw that, we

Page 14445

 1     do know that it is not during the time of Operation Storm.  Whether or

 2     not it was used as a basis thereafter, I'm not clear.  But in the upper

 3     left-hand side, it will show the rank of General Gotovina as a brigadier

 4     and certainly at the time of Operation Storm he was not.  And I do seem

 5     to think, as we were going through this, I did see a date of 1993 at some

 6     juncture.

 7             I think the larger issue here -- and there it is, 1993 in the

 8     right-hand corner.

 9             The larger issue here, Judge, is this, and that has to do with

10     this expert testimony.  There has been no testimony whatsoever that the

11     HV targeted medical facilities in some school or anywhere else, and to

12     put before this Chamber the fact that there is something on a list with

13     grid references when, in reality, those facilities weren't targeted is

14     completely misleading, and it is misleading to this witness.

15             Now, to lead this witness to believe with this grid coordinates

16     that the Knin hospital was shelled, we know, based on all of the Canadian

17     witnesses and UN witnesses that have come in here, and there have been

18     many, that it wasn't shelled.  That it wasn't shelled at all.  Yet

19     Mr. Russo is putting forth items to this witness as if it had, and it

20     is -- as a matter of fact, we all know that it had not.

21             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, this is argument.  I'm not sure where

22     this is going.  If this is a --

23             MR. KEHOE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... because of the good faith

24     effort of the Prosecutor.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  First of all, don't speak at the same time.

Page 14446

 1             MR. KEHOE:  I apologise.

 2             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  May I add something, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let me just ... if you add something and then I

 4     will give an opportunity to Mr. Russo to briefly respond, and I would

 5     like to keep this within certain time-limits.

 6             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Certainly, Your Honour.

 7             If we look at page 98, line 12, in the question in the

 8     transcript, it says:  "Now, will you see on this target list, Colonel

 9     Konings, targets 10, 11 and 28," and if you enlarge the map -- and

10     they're presented as being medical stations.  There's nothing in those

11     points in the map that lists these things as medical stations.  It says:

12     "Stacionar u skoli."  That has nothing to do with medical stations.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  That seems, then, to be a translation issue.  It

14     says then station, school.

15             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And without the word medical, from what I

17     understand.  Let me -- I have to find my way.

18             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  10 and 11 are "stacionar u skoli"; and 28 just

19     says "stacionar."

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I have to enlarge that to see whether I can follow.

21             Mr. Russo, there seems to -- there may be a translation issue

22     here.

23             MR. RUSSO:  Your Honour, if there is a translation issue, we will

24     certainly have it corrected.  However, I believe on the whole target list

25     there are, in fact, several entries for medical stations.  We will

Page 14447

 1     certainly revise the translation, as appropriate.  I may have called off

 2     the wrong numbers.

 3             But, that aside, I'm not sure what the Court wants me to respond

 4     to.  I'm not sure if this is an objection to this particular exhibit that

 5     Mr. Kehoe was making or ...

 6             MR. KEHOE:  I'll clarify the objection.  My objection is the good

 7     faith basis of questions concerning artillery attacks on a hospital when

 8     the Prosecutor knows that those the grid coordinates are not grid

 9     coordinates on the Knin hospital.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if it would be on another hospital, it might

11     be relevant as well.

12             But, therefore, I think I -- we don't have to decide the matter

13     because we invited you to sit together and to see to what extent you can

14     agree on what these coordinates or grid references, in whatever system,

15     mean.  If you cannot reach an agreement then, of course, the Chamber

16     would like to hear what the issue is, why one party is relying on a

17     system which apparently does not -- is in line with the other system, but

18     let's first try to see whether we can get as close as possible to the

19     facts on the basis of specific information we find in the material which

20     is offered in evidence.

21             MR. KUZMANOVIC:  Your Honour, I would like to add that Mr. Russo

22     was very specific about points 10, 11, and 28.  In the translation, it

23     says medical station; in the original, it says nothing about a medical

24     station.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think, as a matter of fact, we established

Page 14448

 1     that, that it was "stacionar u skolu" and on 28 only "staciona."

 2             Now we have to find out whether this has a specific meaning.

 3     That is still possible even it's -- and why it is translated as it is

 4     translated.

 5             You're invited to first seek verification for the translation.

 6     Perhaps you also already include, Mr. Russo, those references for medical

 7     institutions or medical stations which you referred to but of which we do

 8     not know the number yet so that we don't end up in a similar situation

 9     tomorrow.  And as far as the suggestions are concerned, you're invited -

10     but then not with Mr. Kuzmanovic but now with Mr. Kehoe - to see what

11     progress you can make on the coordinates.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Yes, Judge.

13             MR. RUSSO:  And, Your Honour, I will be moving 65 ter 6128 into

14     evidence, but I do want to address the objection to the extent -- I'm not

15     sure about the good faith basis portion of the objection.  But where the

16     witness indicates that putting something on a target list or something

17     appearing on a map, whether or not it happens to be fired at is

18     immaterial to the question.  It is relevant to the determination of

19     intent.  Placing something on a target list establishes what the intent

20     may be with respect to the attack in general.  It doesn't certainly need

21     to be proven that an artillery projectile actually hit that particular

22     target, and we, of course, have already seen a report that projectiles

23     were, in fact, fired at the Knin.  Whether they hit the hospital or not

24     is immaterial.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll -- that's --

Page 14449

 1             MR. KEHOE:  Your Honour, may I respond just briefly.

 2             Then that raises an interesting point that the Prosecutor knows

 3     full well when he went into the Knin church, that was the St. Anthony's

 4     Monastery, a Catholic church that had been destroyed by the Serbs prior

 5     to Operation Storm, and that was never told to this witness by the

 6     Prosecutor.

 7             MR. RUSSO:  That's correct.  It was never told to the witness --

 8             MR. KEHOE:  That's exactly right.  It makes a big difference

 9     [Overlapping speakers] ...

10             MR. RUSSO:  [Overlapping speakers] ... it's irrelevant, Your

11     Honour.  It's irrelevant.

12             MR. KEHOE:  Oh my God.

13             MR. RUSSO:  The point of the witness's testimony was that a

14     church on the target list --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I think, as a matter of fact, you need this

16     evening, the two of you, and then tomorrow we'll see where we are, and

17     then we also have given an opportunity to our transcriber to recover from

18     this event.

19             And, Mr. Kehoe, I do understand the link but to say, Oh my God,

20     and then specifically in relation to churches, and even in this context

21     seems not to be the appropriate way of addressing --

22             MR. KEHOE:  I stand corrected.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn, and we'll -- I apologise for the

24     interpreters and transcribers and everyone else who witnessed the last

25     ten minutes, and we'll resume tomorrow, 15th of January, quarter past

Page 14450

 1     2.00, Courtroom I.

 2                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.10 p.m.,

 3                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 15th day of

 4                           January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.