1 Wednesday, 21 November 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Mr. Registrar, would you
6 please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. I have heard nothing
10 about preliminaries. For the Prosecution, who is going to deal with the
12 MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honours. Adam Weber on behalf of
13 the Prosecution. At this time the Prosecution would seek leave to
14 present the evidence of John Hamill.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the witness be escorted into the
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Hamill.
19 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hamill, before you give evidence, the Rules
21 require that you make a solemn declaration. May I invite you to make
22 that solemn declaration of which the text is now handed out to you.
23 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
24 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
25 WITNESS: JOHN GERARD BRENDAN HAMILL
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Hamill.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hamill, you'll first be examined by Mr. Weber.
4 Mr. Weber is counsel for the Prosecution, and you'll find him to your
6 Mr. Weber, you may proceed.
7 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Examination by Mr. Weber:
9 Q. Mr. Hamill, good morning.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. Could you please tell us your full name along with your current
12 rank and assignment in the Irish defence forces.
13 A. My name is John Gerard Brendan Hamill. I'm a lieutenant-colonel
14 in the Irish defence forces, and I am currently serving in defence force
15 headquarters in Dublin.
16 Q. Have you provided evidence before this Tribunal on three previous
17 occasions in the cases of Prosecutor versus Galic, Prosecutor versus
18 Kordic and Cerkez, and most recently in the Prosecutor versus
19 Radovan Karadzic?
20 A. Yes, I have.
21 Q. Did you have the opportunity to review your previous testimony in
22 the Galic case prior to today?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. Are there any corrections that you would like to make to this
25 previous testimony?
1 A. No. That testimony stands as given.
2 Q. If you were asked the same questions that you were asked in the
3 Galic case would your answers be the same, I take it?
4 A. Yes, they would.
5 MR. WEBER: At this time, the Prosecution tenders a redacted
6 version of Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill's previous testimony in Galic as a
7 public exhibit. The transcript has been uploaded under 65 ter 28551.
8 MR. IVETIC: No objection from the Defence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: It becomes Exhibit P537, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: P537 is admitted into evidence.
12 MR. WEBER:
13 Q. During your previous testimony in Galic, you commented upon the
14 UNPROFOR investigation report dated 15 February 1994, which related to
15 your investigation into the shelling of the Markale market on
16 5 February 1994. Did you again review this report and its annexes prior
17 to your testimony today?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Were there duplicates of a report by a Captain Verdy and cover
20 pages included in these materials?
21 A. There were. There were three copies of the same document.
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
23 two exhibits associated to the witness's previous testimony. The
24 Prosecution has removed the duplicates and cover pages from 65 ter 10010
25 and tenders the materials uploaded under 65 ter 10010A.
1 The second 65 ter number is 17881, which is a map marked by the
2 witness during the previous testimony. The Prosecution tenders both
3 exhibits publicly.
4 MR. IVETIC: No objection from the Defence as to either.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 10010A receives number?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P538, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: P538 is admitted into evidence. 65 ter 17881, map
8 marked by the witness.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Becomes Exhibit P539, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: P539 is admitted.
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honours with your leave the Prosecution would
12 request permission to present the public summary of
13 Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill's evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed as you suggested.
15 MR. WEBER: Lieutenant-Colonel John Hamill served in Sarajevo as
16 a United Nations military observer from May to August 1993. During this
17 period, he worked exclusively in the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps or SRK-held
18 territory. His duties and functions at the time included monitoring the
19 use of weapons as well as carrying out a liaison function at the SRK
20 command in Lukavica.
21 In February 1994, Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill returned to Sarajevo
22 as a technical advisor to a United Nations team tasked with investigating
23 the shelling of the Markale market.
24 During the course of the team's investigations, the witness had
25 occasion to speak with the Bosnian Serb Army's designated liaison for the
1 team, a Colonel Cvetkovic, whom he understood to be the commander of a
2 SRK artillery regiment. In the course of this interview,
3 Colonel Cvetkovic confirmed there were a number of 120-millimetre mortars
4 to the north-north-east of the Markale market in Mrkovici, and he said
5 that in the previous year, the BSA artillery had fired 30.000 to 40.000
6 rounds into the city. He asked Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill why they were
7 so concerned about the one round when they had fired so many.
8 Although not personally present at his UNMO position on
9 1 June 1993, this witness examined two shell craters in Dobrinja in 2001
10 related to scheduled incident G4.
11 This concludes the summary of the witness, Your Honours, may I
12 proceed with my questioning?
13 JUDGE ORIE: You may, Mr. Weber.
14 MR. WEBER:
15 Q. On page 6163 of your previous testimony, you stated:
16 "I certainly remember times when 3.600 rounds were fired into the
17 city from the north over a 12-hour period."
18 Who would fire the large quantity of rounds on these occasions?
19 A. Those rounds would have been fired by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps
20 artillery, which was based in the area north of Vogosca and Radava, north
21 of the city of Sarajevo.
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the Prosecution sought leave to add
23 three exhibits for this witness. At this time, I would seek permission
24 to use one of those three exhibits. It has been uploaded as
25 65 ter 28554. It is an UNMO sitrep related to the time period Mr. Hamill
1 was present in Sarajevo.
2 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Leave is granted.
4 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 28554 for
5 the witness.
6 Q. Directing your attention to the Sector Sarajevo UNMO daily sitrep
7 for 21 and 22 July 1993, which is now before you, do you recall the
8 shelling described in the "General situation" section of this document?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. Could you please explain to us what happened on this occasion?
11 A. At that time most of the area north of Sarajevo was closed to the
12 military observers from the United Nations organisation. However, we
13 were still able to listen to and hear shelling going on from the area
14 east of Rajlovac, in other words, Vogosca, Radava, Polinje, and we heard
15 and recorded a total as you see here of 3.777 rounds which impacted in
17 Q. Based on your experience as an artillery officer, what level of
18 command could have authorised such an expenditure of artillery?
19 A. This was a very high-level --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
21 MR. IVETIC: I'm going to object that they're asking for an
22 expert opinion, they're asking for a conclusion, and they're asking for
24 JUDGE ORIE: Whether it's all of the three, but ...
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: The question as phrased is inadmissible.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, in your previous testimony it is
4 indicated that you had been an artillery officer since 1974, and you also
5 discuss your experience with the command staff of the SRK. Based on your
6 experience with artillery and also your familiarity with the SRK command
7 staff in Lukavica, are you able to comment at all on what level of
8 command could have authorised such an expenditure of artillery on this
10 JUDGE ORIE: You're asking the same, Mr. Weber, more or less.
11 MR. WEBER: Okay. Your Honour, I'm happy to move on.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please do.
13 MR. WEBER: Could I please have the top of page 2 of this
15 Q. Under the section entitled "Restrictions to UNMO movement," the
16 sitrep states:
17 "Patrolling of the Lima 11 area is still impossible by the local
18 and armed gang leader."
19 Do you know who is the local and armed gang leader being referred
20 to in the sitrep?
21 A. Yes, I do. His name was Vasilije Vidovic and I had personal
22 experience of him at that time.
23 Q. On pages 6063 and 6218 to 6219 of your previous testimony you
24 discuss Vidovic and his men. You stated on page 6218 that you believed
25 these men were under the control of a particular officer. What was the
1 name of this officer in?
2 A. I was informed that they were under the command of a
3 General Josipovic, who apparently was in charge of most of the northern
4 Sarajevo Sector.
5 Q. The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 28554 as a public exhibit.
6 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: It becomes Exhibit P540, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: P540 is admitted into evidence.
10 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 13707.
11 Q. Directing your attention to the sector Sarajevo UNMO daily sitrep
12 for 23 and 24 July 1993 which is now before you, are you familiar with
13 the "General situation" section of this document?
14 A. Yes, I am.
15 Q. Do you know if the situation described in this sitrep was part of
16 the same events that we just saw from a few days earlier?
17 A. It is my belief that it is, because it was just two days after
18 the previous events, and it would appear to be just a continuation of the
19 same operation.
20 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 13707 as a public
22 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: It becomes Exhibit P541, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P541 is admitted.
1 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 19268.
2 Your Honours, just to inform the Court, the translation is still
3 pending for this, but we do expect this shortly.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I have no idea yet what it is, so it's -- let's have
5 a look at it.
6 MR. WEBER:
7 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, the Prosecution would like to go
8 through some available information from the 18 hours prior to the
9 shelling of the Markale market on 5 February, 1994.
10 Do you recognise the type of document that is now before you?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. What kind of document is it?
13 A. This was a CapSat transmission, an update to the daily situation
14 report of the UNMOs in Sarajevo, and it was given at midnight on the
15 4th of February.
16 Q. Does this update relate to a particular time period?
17 A. It relates to the period from 1800 hours to midnight on the
18 4th of February, the day before the Markale incident.
19 Q. What do the four-digit numbers that appear within the parentheses
21 A. The four-digit numbers are grid references each covering a
22 kilometre square.
23 Q. This update refers to BiH in as 64 mixed and 14 AAA, no BiH
24 outgoing were heard or seen. It reflects eight mixed and 50 AAA outgoing
25 from the BSA. What does it mean when an UNMO reports either impacts or
1 outgoing fire as mixed?
2 A. Mixed would mean a combination of guns and mortars. It's not
3 always possible to --
4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
6 MR. IVETIC: -- if I may, I would object to the question as
7 phrased insofar as it appears the counsel is now testifying. Unless the
8 witness has some personal knowledge of this or can confirm having been
9 receiving this document, I don't believe that the material in the
10 document can be submitted in this fashion.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see. What now exactly -- "It reflects eight
12 mixed and 50 AAA outgoing from...," is that what you're referring to,
13 Mr. --
14 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, Your Honour. We've established the
15 date of this is February 5th 1994, at a time period when this witness was
16 not in Sarajevo as part of the UNMO mission.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. But, Mr. Weber, could you
18 ask the witness when he was -- when he took up office and when he left
19 it, whether there was a standard system of referring to issues like mixed
20 or AAA so that we know what the basis of his knowledge is when he answers
21 the question.
22 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honours.
23 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, was there a standard system of
24 referring to issues like mixed or AAA that UNMOs used when reporting
25 either outgoing or incoming fire?
1 A. Yes, there was. I had spent nearly nine months in the operation
2 at that time, part of the time writing these reports, part of the time
3 receiving the reports at the headquarters in Zagreb. And if possible,
4 one should distinguish between tank, mortar, and artillery fire, but it
5 wasn't always possible. So they would be referred to as mixed. But if
6 at all possible, the items, the explosions, should be separated out into
7 what type of weapon fired them.
8 AAA refers to anti-aircraft artillery fire. The mixed would
9 refer to a possible combination of tank rounds, gun rounds, or mortar
11 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of this
12 65 ter.
13 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, this is an UNMO daily sitrep for
14 Sector Sarajevo for 5 February 1994, between the hours of 0001 and 0800.
15 Could you please review this document and let us know when you've
16 completed it.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Were you aware of these last two sitreps when you conducted your
19 investigation into the Markale shelling in February 1994?
20 A. I don't believe that I was, no.
21 Q. The sitrep before you indicates that residential areas in the
22 city centre were shelled. What is the objective of shelling residential
23 areas between these hours?
24 MR. IVETIC: Object. Calls for speculation.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, would you rephrase your question.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. Based on your own military experience, is there any legitimate
3 military purpose to targeting residential areas between these hours?
4 MR. IVETIC: Object. Calls for legal conclusion.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, if you ask the witness perhaps about what
6 he learned during his education about shelling during the day-time you
7 might receive the information you're apparently seeking.
8 MR. WEBER:
9 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, throughout your experiences with the
10 Irish Defence forces, have you ever receive training and also provided
11 instruction on whether or not certain targets would be considered
12 legitimate military targets?
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. Could you please briefly tell us what that experience is?
15 A. A legitimate target is a target which is of high value which is
16 military and which is not one which would be against the
17 Law of Armed Conflict, such as a city centre or a residential area.
18 Q. Would you consider the shelling the city centre between the hours
19 of midnight and 8.00 that's reflected in this sitrep before you to be a
20 legitimate military activity based your experience and training?
21 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, same objection, same legal conclusion.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, these kind of conclusions, Mr. Weber, of
23 course are for the Chamber. The Chamber might be assisted by knowing
24 what the effect of this type of shelling would be under those
25 circumstances. So if you would wish to elicit such evidence, it is not
1 covered by the objection. Please proceed.
2 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 Q. What would the effect of this type of shelling be under these
5 A. Unless there was a military target involved which was engaged in
6 active military activity, I cannot conceive of any reason for shelling
7 the area at that time.
8 MR. WEBER: At this time, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 19268 as
9 a public exhibit.
10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, we would object insofar as the witness
11 at transcript page 11, line 17, said he doesn't believe that he was
12 provided these at the time that he was involved in the Markale
14 JUDGE ORIE: But, Mr. Ivetic, just one short question.
15 Apparently Mr. Weber wants to establish what knowledge Mr. Hamill did not
16 have at that time, and by showing him a document and saying, Did you have
17 this knowledge available, would that not shed additional light on what
18 knowledge the witness had at the time and what knowledge he did not have?
19 MR. IVETIC: And if the witness can add something to the document
20 it could be admitted through the witness otherwise it's not for this
21 witness who has neither authored the document nor received the document,
22 nor is it during the time period that he had personal knowledge of the
23 events in question since he was not in Sarajevo after August of 1993.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber denies the objection.
1 Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 19268 becomes Exhibit P542, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P542 is admitted into evidence.
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if we could please leave it MFI'd, I'm
5 sorry, just pending the translation.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It has to be MFI'd. Sorry for that mistake.
7 And there's another matter.
8 Mr. Ivetic, you have not asked it to be read so that it could be
9 translated for Mr. Mladic. May I take it that there was no need to do
11 MR. IVETIC: That is correct, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then I correct my earlier pronunciation of admission
13 and P542 is marked for identification waiting translation.
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P538,
15 page 42 of the English original only. The B/C/S translation is on
16 page 55, but it is simply a duplicate of the English page.
17 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, this is a document that was annexed to
18 your 15 February 1994 UNPROFOR investigation report. Could you please
19 tell us what this document is?
20 A. This document is an Increp or incident report from the Papa side,
21 which is the Presidency side of the UNMO operation within Sarajevo. And
22 what an incident report is is a report on the incoming shells and other
23 types of munitions into the area of the Presidency side during the period
24 in question.
25 Q. What date does this Increp relate to?
1 A. It relates to the 5th of February, 1994.
2 Q. Directing your attention to the far left column entitled
3 "Sender serial," what do the letters and numbers in this column
5 A. The first two letters and numbers, the letter and the digit --
6 Papa 3, for example refers to an UNMO post known as Papa 3 on the
7 Presidency side. As they logged the income shells, mortar shells,
8 4 mortar shells from 0530 to 0535, they gave it a serial number, 01.
9 Similarly Papa 2 at 0645 logged one mortar bomb and gave it the title
10 Papa 2-01 and so on down. So it relates to the UNMO post and the number
11 that they had allocated to the incident.
12 Q. I know you've started to explain some of the other information in
13 this document, but if I could direct you specifically to the centre
14 column entitled "Activity details." There are letters followed by a
15 number, and then separately a four-digit number. Could you please tell
16 us what these notations represent?
17 A. The letter refers to the type of weapon that is being used. So
18 if memory serves me correctly, Alpha or A is for guns, B is for mortars,
19 C is for tanks, and so on. The number immediately following the first
20 letter refers to the number of rounds of that type of munition, and then
21 the four digits at the right-hand side of that column refers to the grid
22 reference, the 1 kilometre square within which the munitions fell.
23 Q. I know you've started to explain it, but just so we have a clear
24 record, on the basis of the explanations you just provided, would it be
25 correct to interpret the first entry, as an example, as indicating there
1 were four mortar impacts observed by a Papa team between 5.30 and 5.35 in
2 the morning in grid 9259?
3 A. That's precisely correct.
4 Q. On this page there's an entry for Markale. Do you have any
5 observations of the shelling activity leading up to this entry?
6 A. This entry is -- is quite specific. It says that Markale is in
7 grid 9260, which is incorrect. It's actually in grid 9259. But going to
8 the substance of your question, it shows that there were mortar bombs
9 falling within the Sarajevo city centre area in the period leading up to
10 that particular one bomb on Markale, some at 10.00 in grids 9059 and some
11 reported by Papa 5 between 11.30 and 12.45 in grid 9159, which is the
12 neighbouring grid to the Markale grid. It's approximately anything from
13 900 to 1.900 metres from Markale.
14 MR. WEBER: Could we please have the lower part of this page.
15 Q. Do you have any observations of the shelling activity after the
16 Markale entry?
17 A. Clearly shelling continued throughout the day from mortars, from
18 tanks, and fell generally in the city centre and also in the western part
19 of the city.
20 Q. Overall, how would you describe the level of activity on the --
21 on 5 February 1994?
22 A. It wasn't very heavy. It was relatively light. It was a normal
23 Sarajevo day, from my experience.
24 Q. You've mentioned that the grid reference of 9260 for Markale was
25 incorrect. Did you have the opportunity during proofing yesterday to
1 compare this reference to a map and also the six-digit grid reference of
2 929596 listed on the first page of these investigative materials?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Could you please briefly explain the difference between a
5 four-digit and a six-digit grid reference?
6 A. The four --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I think the Chamber received evidence
8 that a three-digit grid reference gives a square of 1 kilometre by
9 1 kilometre, whereas a four-digit gives a square of 100 metres by 100
11 THE WITNESS: That's almost correct, Your Honour. Almost
12 correct, yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Almost correct. Then, please, it's always good to
14 know where our understanding is wrong.
15 THE WITNESS: It's --a four-digit grid gives one square kilometre
16 and a six-digit grid is 100 metres by 100 metres.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, what I meant to say, as a matter of fact, is
18 that four is 2 by 2 --
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Six is 3 by 3.
21 THE WITNESS: 3 by 3, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So, yes, now I think we understood this estimate.
23 Thank you.
24 Please proceed Mr. Weber.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 9821A for
1 the witness. It is a map. There's no translation.
2 If we could please have it magnified in the upper right-hand
3 corner of this map. If we could please have an additional magnification.
4 Could the witness please be provided with a pen. I believe the witness
5 has one.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you need a special pen, Mr. Hamill, to mark
7 anything on the screen.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I imagine this is possibly it.
9 It was connected to the screen.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but we have different colours.
11 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry.
12 MR. WEBER:
13 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, are you able to locate the grid
14 references on the map before you?
15 A. Yes, I am.
16 Q. Could you please locate the spot associated to the six-digit grid
17 reference of 929596 on the map before you and circle it.
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. Could you please place an X inside of the area corresponding to
20 grid 9260.
21 A. [Marks]
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders this map as
23 marked by the witness.
24 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Marked version of 65 ter 9821A becomes
2 Exhibit P543, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the Prosecution has no further
5 questions at this time. We tender the witness.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hamill, you'll now be cross examined by
7 Mr. Ivetic. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.
8 You will find him to your left.
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
12 Q. Good morning, Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill. Before I begin with my
13 questions, I'd like to take the chance to remind you that since we both
14 speak English, we have to be mindful to have pauses between question and
15 answer so that the translator and -- the translators and the
16 court reporter can keep up with us. Is that okay?
17 A. That's fine.
18 Q. And let's begin with the questions. First of all, sir, could you
19 please tell us what, if any, training or instruction specific to the
20 constitutional framework of the former Socialist Federative Republic
21 of Yugoslavia you received prior to your deployment to Bosnia as part of
22 the UN?
23 A. In terms of formal training, I can say that I received none
24 specifically, except that I educated myself by reading what I could not
25 on the constitution but on the history of former Yugoslavia as it was and
1 also of the conflict to date.
2 Q. Did you undergo or undertake any special review or training or
3 instruction as to the armed forces and/or the defence system of the
4 former Yugoslavia such as the structure of the JNA, the structure of the
5 VRS, or the structure of the so-called Armija BiH?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. Could you tell us what that instruction entailed? Was it --
8 first of all, was it self-education?
9 A. No, it was provided by my defence forces at home prior to my
11 Q. How extensive was it in terms of the amount of time that was
13 A. Extensive enough that as a trained military officer with more
14 than 20 years' experience, I was well able to take in what a normal
15 military structure was and is.
16 Q. For those of us without 20 years' experience, how long is it in
17 terms of hours, days, weeks?
18 A. I had 20 years' experience on training of being a military
19 officer. I was a senior officer at the time. I completed a command and
20 staff course with distinction. I had degree, and I had post-graduate
21 training. So I can't actually quantify how much training I received
22 during my military experience which would enable me to understand foreign
23 armies, but take it that it was something in the region of two full
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, there maybe some confusion. I think
1 that you are interested to know what specific additional training the
2 witness received shortly before he went to the former Yugoslavia, perhaps
3 after he had heard that he would be sent there. Is that -- could you
4 tell us how intensive or how much time briefing and instructions took
5 once you knew that you would be sent to the former Yugoslavia?
6 THE WITNESS: Mr. President, I cannot recall specifically at this
7 time, but it was certainly a period of a number of days.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. That answers the question, I take it,
9 Mr. Ivetic?
10 MR. IVETIC: Yes, it does. Thank you.
11 Q. Sir, when you were first deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina were you
12 able to speak the local language, or did you have to rely upon an
14 A. I relied upon interpreters.
15 Q. And were the interpreters that were used locals, that is to say
16 locals from Yugoslavia, or were they persons that came from outside of
18 A. They were all Bosnians.
19 Q. Did you have occasion to use the same interpreters when you were
20 part of the UNMO mission as you used when you did your subsequent
21 investigations into the Markale and the Dobrinja incidents?
22 A. No. I used interpreters which were employed by UNMO Sarajevo
23 during my deployment there. When I went back subsequently I used
24 interpreters which were employed by the ICTY, as I understand.
25 Q. Let's break that up. You say you used interpreters by the ICTY.
1 Are you referring there to the Dobrinja investigation but not the
2 Markale, I would imagine?
3 A. Not the Markale, no.
4 Q. In relation to any briefings that you received as part of the
5 UNMO mission, am I correct that you were -- part of your briefings
6 entailed a warning that the Bosnian Presidency forces in town could very
7 well place dead bodies in crime scenes to create a false image?
8 A. This was stated.
9 Q. I would now like to ask you to confirm some things about the
10 skills or science involved in the use of artillery. In order to assist
11 us, I would like to turn to some of your testimony in the Kordic and
12 Cerkez case.
13 MR. IVETIC: So if we can call up document 1D438 in e-court. And
14 if we could turn to the second page of that document. I believe it will
15 be transcript page 16184.
16 And if we can focus on the fifth and sixth line onward. It would
17 be lines 5 through 19, approximately, that I'd like to draw the witness's
18 attention to.
19 Q. Sir, here I will present to you the portion of the transcript
20 beginning the end of line 5 through line 19 and ask you to comment on it
22 "Q. One point of amplification: Is calculating the place from
23 which artillery fires a practical skill used by soldiers on the ground?
24 "A. Yes, it is.
25 "Q. The reason being, that if you are being fired at, and you
1 can't see where the guns are firing from, you actually need to work it
3 "A. You need to work it out in order to return fire.
4 "Q. Is that a skill, therefore, in which artillery officers are
6 "A. Yes.
7 "Q. And were you so trained?
8 "A. I was."
9 First of all, sir, as a formality can you confirm the selection
10 of the transcript I have read as being true and accurate in form?
11 A. I presume it is. I haven't seen it in the past 12 years or
13 Q. Am I correct that in this case, that is to say the Kordic case,
14 you were testifying as an expert having performed approximately one week
15 of an analysis of a particular shelling in the city of Zenica?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Now, when it's recorded here that you said if one doesn't see the
18 artillery firing you have to "work it out in order to return fire," could
19 you tell us, does this mean that one must examine the crater hits from
20 incoming fire to determine the potential source?
21 A. That is one method. There are other methods.
22 Q. Okay. Using any of these methods is this an instantaneous
23 process or does it take time?
24 A. Using that process, it takes time. And furthermore, it is only
25 possible to get the general direction from which the weapon was fired.
1 It is not possible to calculate the range.
2 Q. In the case of mortars that are used in a shoot and scoot manner
3 by the other side, is it fairly possible that the weapons that were the
4 source of incoming fire can be long gone by the time that the receiving
5 side works out the direction where from the fire came and attempts to
6 return fire?
7 A. Absolutely.
8 Q. Can you just briefly describe to us what is shoot and scoot?
9 A. Shoot and scoot is used by mortars, because mortar fire is easily
10 detected, mortars are slow weapons, the -- the projectile is subsonic, so
11 it can be detected in the air by a missile system, for example, which
12 would then give the operator of the missile system -- or sorry, the radar
13 system a means of locating where the mortar was firing from. So mortar
14 will go into a position. It will fire a number of rounds, and it will
15 then leave. So it shoots and it scoots. It leaves the area and
16 redeploys elsewhere.
17 Q. And am I correct that this shoot and scoot is a mortar tactic
18 that is taught and used by NATO-aligned forces?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. Do you know if this was a tactic, shoot and scoot, which was
21 taught under the SFRY or JNA system?
22 A. I would imagine that it was, but it was not the way that mortars
23 were deployed in Sarajevo by the SRK. It was used by the Presidency
25 Q. And just for the sake of clarity, I believe you may have already
1 touched upon this topic, but the process of working out the source of
2 incoming fire can only determine the bearing, because the range of the
3 incoming shell is determined on the amount of charge that is placed on
4 the mortar round; is that correct?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. And am I also correct that there is no forensic evidence that can
7 be obtained at the site of a round impact as to the amount of charge that
8 was on that round because all of this was used up at the time of firing?
9 A. That's precisely correct.
10 Q. And I apologise, this may seem like a layman's question, it may
11 be foolish to you, but is it possible to determine how far a shot has
12 travelled in relation to how far -- how deep it has impacted on a hard
13 surface, that is to say the funnel -- the fuse tunnel or furrow of the
15 A. I am not aware of any publication which would give that type of
16 information. Particularly as when the round impacts on the ground, the
17 surface can be of various different types. It can be concrete which is
18 reinforced, concrete which is not reinforced. There can be asphalt.
19 There can be earth. You know, it's just simply not possible to establish
20 how -- how far it had come from.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you earlier had problems with expert
22 matters. It is my recollection reading some of the judgement of this
23 Tribunal that the matters you are addressing at this moment were dealt
24 with by experts extremely specialised in this area, including the issues
25 as you just mentioned them. Therefore, I'm wondering whether or not the
1 basis of the knowledge of this witness on these matters should be tested
2 before we ask questions around these matters, apart from whether this is
3 expert evidence or not. I am perhaps a bit little less concerned by it
4 in the formal sense than you are. The same may be true for my
5 colleagues. But is there anyway, for example, to ask the witness whether
6 he's aware of studies of the composition of the ground in relation to the
7 penetration of the sound by projectiles, whether he has any knowledge of
9 Mr. Hamill, perhaps -- I think you heard the question. Are you
10 aware of any studies of impact -- of projectiles on the various types of
11 soil, concrete? Are you familiar with that?
12 THE WITNESS: I have not seen such literature, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think the matter of the expertise arises
14 here, Mr. Ivetic, and I'm quite willing -- perhaps we should not discuss
15 it in the presence of the witness. Therefore, I suggest that we take a
16 break in a couple of minutes but that we already invite the witness to
17 leave the courtroom and take the break -- before we take the break.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if you would read the proceedings, for
20 example, in the Galic case, you'd find out that - and, of course, I'm
21 referring to that case only - that experts of the Prosecution, expert of
22 the Defence, both trained in the same field - I think even one being the
23 professor of the other - agreed on important matters which required a
24 thorough knowledge of exactly the kind of things Mr. Hamill has just told
25 us he doesn't know about. So therefore, I wonder what is the use of
1 asking these questions which require not only a bit of expertise but the
2 highest possible expertise, which was, as I understand, only developed in
3 the cases before this Tribunal, and then to ask the witness questions in
4 the area where he has clearly shown to have no knowledge, let alone
5 expert knowledge.
6 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, then I'm really confused,
7 because the basis and bulk of this witness's testimony in direct
8 examination were two analyses that he performed of incoming fire, one for
9 the Prosecution, one for the United Nations, and which are the bulk of
10 his testimony. So is he or is he not qualified to talk about examination
11 of craters which is precisely the area that I'm asking him about.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I would say -- I'm inclined to say that with the
13 limited training and therefore also with the limited results, if I ask
14 someone who is not very trained in a certain area, I should explore the
15 level of his training, and whatever his conclusions are is always limited
16 by the level of his knowledge. If that is -- if you would agree with
17 that and that whatever the witness says, and when you're talking about
18 the range of fire whether you could draw any conclusions on the basis of
19 the composition of the soil, if the witness says, I do not know,
20 apparently he's not familiar with that subject. And, therefore, if he
21 would draw conclusions for which you would need to know that and that
22 would, for example, not be crater analysis which does not pay attention
23 to the depth of impact but just pays attention to the origin of fire in a
24 more broad sense, that it came approximately from this direction without
25 saying anything to the range, as the witness said, then I think we
1 would -- we would be assisted by this evidence, also by knowing what its
2 limited meaning has to be.
3 Would you -- is this something you would agree to or not, because
4 then we can leave out the composition and depth of impact if it comes to
5 any further details which would lead to assessing the range of fire other
6 than in terms of direction, at least on the basis of the composition of
7 the soil.
8 I see you're nodding yes, which doesn't appear on the --
9 MR. IVETIC: I will be happy to ask him as to his experiences of
10 doing crater analyses and the education and training he has had in that
11 regard if that will assists in terms of his knowledge base for the
12 answers to the questions he provided to the Prosecution and to the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Weber, would you agree with this approach?
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution has nothing to add.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then we take a break, and we resume at 5 minutes to
18 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
20 [The accused not present]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, the Chamber establishes that the
22 accused, that Mr. Mladic, is not in the courtroom. Could you provide us
23 any further information.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. After the end
25 of the first session, Mr. Mladic complained that he was not feeling well,
1 that he's dizzy, and in the room we were in, a medical worker took his
2 pressure, and his pressure is close to the maximum normal. He says he
3 feels his right-hand side of the body is feeling numb. It was said that
4 medics from the Detention Unit will be consulted, and we asked what was
5 going to happen afterwards. We also asked Mr. Mladic if he was able to
6 join us in the courtroom. He said he was not, and he asked us to inform
7 you thereof, and he also asked to be given the necessary assistance.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, we do understand that Mr. Mladic
11 receives the assistance he has asked for. He says he is unable to join
12 and to inform us about that. Can we continue as far as the Defence is
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, he did not
15 authorise us to continue without his presence while he is in such a
17 JUDGE ORIE: Would that mean -- of course, the Chamber decides on
18 whether or not there are sufficient reasons not to proceed. Would that
19 mean that if we decide to proceed that you would not further
20 cross-examine the witness? Is that -- or Mr. Ivetic would not further
21 examine the witness? Is that -- because I'm not telling you a secret
22 when I say that we had a long history of claims about not feeling well
23 which finally were medically not substantiated. That is the reason why
24 the Chamber is a bit cautious in not proceeding. The Chamber is also
25 aware that if we would proceed, first of all that everything is audio and
1 video recorded. Second, that if the appropriate remedy would be to hear
2 again part of the testimony of the witness that that is still an option
3 to be considered, but we have lost considerable time for claims of
4 feeling unable to attend where there was no medical basis for that.
5 Therefore, the question is: What if the Chamber now would decide
6 to proceed, again with all the caveats I just gave to you, possibility to
7 follow the proceedings? We'll know soon whether there are any medical
8 reasons for Mr. Mladic, that he cannot attend as he claims until now.
9 Would you like to briefly discuss this with Mr. Mladic? Then we
10 would take a break of another -- one second.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Judge Moloto has a question.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Stojanovic, the person who you say attended to
14 Mr. Mladic was interpreted as a medical worker? What kind of medical
15 worker is this? What's the qualification of the person?
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we do not know
17 that. I'm saying that no medical assistance has been given to
18 Mr. Mladic, only his pressure was taken. That's all we were told about
19 his pressure. And we were also told that Dr. Falke from the
20 Detention Unit will be consulted immediately because of the indications
21 presented by Mr. Mladic.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question is: The medical worker who took his
23 pressure, what level of qualification is he?
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We don't know that, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take -- we'll take a break of ten minutes.
3 During these ten minutes, Mr. Stojanovic, you have an opportunity to
4 further discuss the matter with Mr. Mladic, and the Chamber will have a
5 possibility to further inquire into what has happened until now and what
6 the exact situation is.
7 We take a break and we resume at 20 minutes past 11.00.
8 --- Break taken at 11.10 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 11.29 a.m.
10 [The accused entered court]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
12 Meanwhile, I establish that Mr. Mladic is present in the courtroom.
13 Mr. Stojanovic, the Chamber has used the break to consult
14 Dr. Gerts, and the Chamber establishes that as matters stand now, on the
15 basis of the information we have now, that there is no objective medical
16 reason to support the absence of Mr. Mladic in court, and we would have
17 proceeded without his presence if he would not have appeared in court.
18 Second, the Chamber takes it that the time we've lost with all
19 this should not make any change in this week's schedule. So therefore,
20 keep this in the back of your mind that the last half hour is a half an
21 hour you have lost.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hamill, welcome back.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It was a bit longer than you may have expected.
1 Mr. Ivetic will now resume his cross-examination.
2 Mr. Ivetic, the Judges briefly discussed the matter, and I think
3 the preferred way of proceeding is to first ask what the witness did and
4 found and only after that pay attention to whether that fits into his
5 expertise or his special knowledge. Please proceed.
6 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
7 Q. In terms of the crater analyses that you have performed in the
8 course of your career, including the one at the Markale site and the
9 Dobrinja site, am I correct that you estimate a range of possible
10 distances that a round travelled based upon the type of shell and the
11 known range table for that or similar type of ordnance based on the
12 various possible charges that could be fitted to the same?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. And for the record, how are these range tables generated?
15 A. Range tables are generated by the manufacturers of the ammunition
16 in co-operation with the manufacturers of the weapon. The range tables
17 provide information in relation to the range depending on the number of
18 charges that are fitted to the particular type of projectile and the
19 angle at which it is fired.
20 Q. And in performing your crater analysis of these two sites and all
21 of them that you have formed in your career, am I correct that depending
22 on the number of charges that are fitted to a shell before it is fired
23 the maximum distance of a particular ordnance could vary by as much as a
24 few hundred metres to over several kilometres?
25 A. Absolutely.
1 Q. And in the analysis that you performed, am I correct that based
2 upon the minimum and maximum ranges of a particular ordnance that you
3 have found to have landed, you then look at known or fixed locations of
4 artillery or mortars to determine what potential sources for that fire
6 A. Not necessarily, because, of course, weapons can be moved from
7 their positions and are regularly moved from their positions. That was
8 not normally the case in the case of the RSK weaponry around Sarajevo.
9 As I have previously indicated in previous evidence, it normally stayed
10 in the same position. However, what one does find are general areas, six
11 in this case, where the weapon could have fired from.
12 Q. And just to clarify, you said RSK. Did you mean SRK, the
13 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
14 A. Sorry, correct.
15 Q. And the six locations that you said that the fire could have come
16 from, were these all locations where there was existing artillery in
17 place either on the Armija side or the SRK side?
18 A. No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
20 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe we're just causing possibly a
21 little confusion in the record. There's been reference to multiple
22 analyses and now there is discussion of six locations. Maybe for clarity
23 we could establish which one of the investigations he's now discussing.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I have suggested, Mr. Ivetic, that the preferred way
25 of proceeding is to find out what the witness did and what he observed,
1 and to do that in general terms might be less assisting the Chamber than
2 if you look at what did you do here, what did you do there? Please
4 MR. IVETIC: I apologise, Your Honour. I thought we were talking
5 about Markale.
6 Q. Colonel --
7 A. So did I.
8 Q. With -- with regard to -- let's stick with Markale for the
9 moment. In the case of a mobile mortar or one being used in a shoot and
10 scoot capacity, would it be difficult to locate such pieces through any
11 type of analysis that you do?
12 A. That's a very difficult question to answer. If there was a fixed
13 position from which the mortar normally fired, then clearly it would be
14 visible, but in the fact that because the possible positions cover a
15 large area, it would be very difficult to find any physical evidence that
16 the mortar had fired from there. We're talking in terms of an area
17 possibly hundreds of metres long by tens and possibly a hundred metres
18 wide. Because of the inherent inaccuracy of a mortar, we're looking
19 backwards rather than forwards, as it were.
20 Q. We'll get to that. If I can direct specifically to Markale, the
21 areas that were the potential sources for fire that you say covered a
22 larger area, is it possible for a mobile mortar being used in a shoot and
23 scoot capacity to have been the origin of that shot and to therefore no
24 longer be an identifiable mortar position?
25 A. Certainly.
1 Q. Now, you have mentioned the inherit inaccuracy of a mortar.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just ask. You're asking a general question,
3 but you say it is about Markale. That makes it a hypothetical question,
4 I take it, that -- I'm a bit confused by this is Markale and then to ask
5 potential sources of fire, larger area. Is it possible for a mobile
6 mortar being used in that and that capacity. So you're subsuming all
7 kind of assumptions, make all kind of assumptions and then link that to
8 Markale where nothing of the kind has been, as far as I'm -- as far as I
9 understand, has been established. So therefore if it is a general
10 question, then it comes close to the expert questions. If it is specific
11 about Markale, then I have not seen or heard any of these facts or
12 assumptions to be further explained.
13 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I prefaced my question saying
14 specifically with Markale. I don't know how much further I can direct it
15 to be about Markale, and I asked the witness are we talking about
17 THE WITNESS: I assume we are talking about Markale, and I assume
18 we are talking about the analyses which were done by me and by my team on
19 the 11th and 12th of February, 1994.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So what we are then talking about is -- let's
21 then have a look at what the team did, what they wrote down about it, and
22 then if the finding was A, B or C, then to ask the witness further
23 questions about that. Then we know what we are talking about. At this
24 moment it is Markale, and it's at the same time a very general approach.
25 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, Rule 92 ter has been utilised for this
1 witness to introduce his transcript and has been utilised to introduce a
2 report on this investigation. If I must go through every step of that
3 then I will need several days for this witness.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Take us to the report. Take us to the page, and
5 then -- then we know exactly what we're talking about.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. Sir, did you -- did you prepare a report with your findings --
8 JUDGE ORIE: There is no problem that he did prepare a report.
9 Take us to the report and to the page and then we are able to follow your
11 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honour, if the witness prepared a report
12 why can't I have the witness's knowledge of the report? Why can't he
13 testify to that?
14 JUDGE ORIE: No, but you should assist us take us in taking us to
15 the part of the report where you were questions about, where your
16 questions are of a very general nature and you don't have to ask the
17 witness whether he wrote a report. That is not in dispute. Just say to
18 us, I'm focusing now on this report or on testimony page that and that.
19 We'll be able to follow and we'll then proceed as efficiently as
21 MR. IVETIC: I'd love to, Your Honours, except the report that I
22 used in preparations is not the same report that's in evidence because it
23 was changed this morning, so I don't have the page references for
24 Your Honours. But let us turn to --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Mr. Weber will assist you, I take it.
1 Exhibit number already assists.
2 MR. IVETIC: It's Exhibit 5 -- 538. P538.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. And with respect to --
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, maybe to assist Mr. Ivetic if he's using
7 the report, in the upper right corner of the documents that have been
8 admitted there's a 2 of -- it starts at 2 of 46. That will put him in
9 the approximate page range.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We all have access to e-court. I have it already on
11 my screen in e-court on the basis of the exhibit number. That's the
12 document we're talking about.
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. If we can turn to the page -- first of all, sir, am I correct
15 that a number of individuals assisted or participated in the preparation
16 of this report with --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- yourself?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And with respect to the report, the findings were that there were
21 six potential locations that could have been the source of the -- of the
22 incoming round and it could not be determined what side of the
23 confrontation line the round came from; is that accurate?
24 A. That is accurate.
25 Q. And from the six positions from which it was said that the
1 incoming fire could have come from, four were on the SRK or the
2 Bosnian Serb side and two were on the Bosnian Muslim or Bosnian
3 Presidency side?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And with respect to that area that we're talking about that could
6 be the potential area that a shell could have come in from, I now return
7 to my original question which was: From that area would it also be
8 possible for a mobile mortar being used in a shoot and scoot capacity to
9 have fired from those areas and to have been the source of the shell that
10 impacted on the Markale marketplace in February of 1994?
11 A. Obviously.
12 Q. Okay. I'd like to -- I'd like to ask you in regards to Markale.
13 Were you able to perform a traditional fuse tunnel test to determine the
14 bearing or direction of the --
15 A. Yes, but it -- the ground had been somewhat disturbed so it
16 wasn't as accurate as I would have liked.
17 Q. Before we get back to your report, I'd like to ask you about
18 something that you had -- in one of your prior written statements. If I
19 can return to 1D441, and first if we could have the first page so the
20 witness could recognise the same.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Ivetic, did you say 441 or 411?
22 MR. IVETIC: 441, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. And, sir, we now have the first page up on the screen and it has
1 some signatures on the bottom, if you could focus on those. Does this
2 appear to be one of your prior statements dated December 13, 14, 15 of
4 A. Yes, it does.
5 Q. And is it signed by you?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. Thank you, sir. If we could turn to the sixth page in court in
8 English and the seventh page in B/C/S and I'd like to focus on the last
9 paragraph in the English that leads on to the next page, and on the B/C/S
10 it's all on the same page. And I'd like to present you with what you
11 affirmed in your statement on that day and then I'll ask you for some
12 comments on it. First of all:
13 "I later spoke with Colonel Radislav Cvetkovic, commander of the
14 BSA artillery to the eastern side of Sarajevo who denied that they had
15 fired the shell and who stated that he had fired 30- to 40.000 on the
16 city in the previous year, so why would he deny this one if it was not
18 First of all, sir, having now seen and having heard me read this
19 selection of your statement, do you agree that this is in relation to the
20 Markale investigation?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. Do you believe that this section of the statement that I read to
23 you is truthful and accurate as to your knowledge and recollection of
24 this discussion that you had with -- or encounter with Colonel Cvetkovic?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. And just to be clear so there is no confusion,
2 Colonel Cvetkovic's statement to you has to be understood as denying that
3 the BSA fired that shell?
4 A. Yes, of course.
5 Q. And this 1995 statement that you -- that contains this testimony
6 from you was taken just over one year after you had the meeting with
7 Colonel Cvetkovic?
8 A. Slightly more. I had the meeting with Colonel Cvetkovic on the
9 14th, I think, of February, 1994, and the statement, as you pointed out,
10 was taken around the 11th to the 12th of December, 1995, but I remember
11 to this day very clearly the conversation I had with Colonel Cvetkovic.
12 Q. And does the selection we've just read from your 1995 statement
13 comport with your very clear recollections?
14 A. Absolutely.
15 Q. That's all I needed, sir. Thank you. Now, as part of your
16 investigation into the Markale incident, did you become aware that there
17 was a police building or headquarters within 300 metres of the site of
18 the blast?
19 A. I believe so, yes.
20 Q. I'd now like to return to P538, and I believe it should be
21 page 54 in the e-court of the version that is in e-court. And while we
22 wait for that, sir, the report that is on the screen is -- is part of the
23 packet that is the result of your investigative team's efforts and -- and
24 am I correct that this is the prior investigative team --
25 Mr. Captain Verdy, this is his findings or his cover sheet of his report?
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. And am I correct that this was available to you and indeed
3 reviewed by you prior to making your own conclusions as to the bearing of
4 the shell?
5 A. I'm not sure as to whether I reviewed it before or after I
6 conducted my own investigation but it was certainly made available at
7 that time, and I found it, as I'm sure you're about to introduce, as
8 being completely and utterly wrong.
9 Q. First I'd like to focus on the item labelled as G, description of
10 evidence. Description -- pardon me, description of damage. And there it
12 "The mortar shell impacted on the wood of a stall (0.9 metres
13 from the ground) so that the analysis was very difficult."
14 Do you agree with this assessment by Captain Verdy?
15 A. I do not.
16 Q. Do you believe that the shell impacted at ground level or some
17 distance above ground level?
18 A. I believe that the shell impacted on the ground and detonated
19 either at ground level or slightly below ground level, very slightly
21 Q. Would you agree with me that by the time you arrived at the site
22 much of the location had been swept and most of the debris had been
24 A. I would say that a lot of debris had been removed but sufficient
25 remained that we could conduct a proper analysis of the situation and the
2 Q. If we can please turn to page 51 in e-court of this same document
3 in the English and page 70 in the B/C/S version. And
4 Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill this is what is identified as an amplification
5 of the analysis, and it's signed on the next page by Major John Russell.
6 First of all, who was Major Russell in relation to the investigative team
7 that you partook?
8 A. Major Russell was not a member of the investigative team. He
9 was, I believe, the military advisor or military assistant to the
10 commander of the UN force in Bosnia. I didn't meet him. I didn't meet
11 him specifically.
12 Q. If we can focus on the part labelled part with the number 1.
13 This which we can -- you can read. It's on the bottom of the screen.
14 This section indicates that a minimum of three craters is necessary to
15 give a better chance of confirming a weapons system location. Would you
16 agree with that assessment?
17 A. It certainly would help, yes.
18 Q. And just so we're clear, now talking about the Markale incident,
19 there was only crater, is that accurate?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. And if we can look at his description which is also contained in
22 part 1 where he states:
23 "In this situation, the mortar round apparently struck vendor's
24 table which initiated the round just prior to striking the ground. This
25 can be confirmed by, one, the small crater's signature (a 120-millimetre
1 mortar would naturally make a bigger crater on the pavement found at the
2 market) and, two, the amount of casualties generated by the explosion
3 leads one to conclude that a slightly above-ground explosion occurred."
4 Do you -- did you and your team agree with this assessment?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you or other members of your team have an opportunity to
7 dispute or discuss these findings with other UN personnel involved?
8 A. The team discussed them with the team. There was a total of four
9 members on the team plus two technical advisors, and we discussed it
10 amongst ourselves.
11 Q. Okay. And just so that we're clear, how many members of the team
12 were there in addition to yourself?
13 A. Team leader, three members, myself, and an EOD expert.
14 Q. And was it the unanimous conclusion of all team members that the
15 precise source of the fire could not be distinguished; that is, that
16 either side could have been the source for this shell, either the --
17 A. Yes. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. I'd like to now move to the Dobrinja investigation and
19 specifically deal with that particular investigation that you
20 were [overlapping speakers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Before we move on, could I ask the witness one or
22 two questions. Mr. Hamill, have you read any of the reports which were
23 later produced before this Tribunal by experts Vilicic and Zecevic.
24 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I have not.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Have you in any other way familiarised yourselves
1 with what in addition to the technical possibilities you had at the time
2 were available to experts that later studied and examined the matter?
3 THE WITNESS: No, sir. When we concluded our report on the
4 15th of February, that was the end of it, as far as we were concerned.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. Thank you. Now again so we're clear, Colonel - I apologise for
8 having to repeat this - but so that everybody's clear now let's talk
9 about Dobrinja. First of all, the two craters that you found on site
10 were filled with a red substance --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Any documents you're referring to or just the
12 testimony of the witness in the previous case; and if so, what page
14 MR. IVETIC: Let's call up Exhibit 1D435.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It has not received an exhibit number yet, Mr. --
17 MR. IVETIC: No. This is 65 ter number 1D435.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. IVETIC: Which I believe is an information sheet dated the
20 18th of September, 2011, and is the result of a meeting between
21 Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill and members of the Prosecution, specifically
22 Mr. Barry Hogan and Mr. Chester Stamp.
23 Q. First of all, sir, do you recall a meeting with the Prosecution
24 on the date in question?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. And if I can direct your attention to the third paragraph on this
2 document. It says and I begin:
3 "The craters are old, and both have been filled with a red
4 substance that has the effect of largely preserving them. However, the
5 process did interfere with the craters to some extent. I made the
6 assumption that the craters were not interfered with unduly, and that the
7 red substance was the only interference. Crater 1, the easternmost, was
8 better preserved than crater 2. The interference was such that it is not
9 possible at this time to determine whether the craters were made by a gun
10 or a mortar. However, there were indications in crater 1 that it was a
11 light-calibre gun. There were traces of 'wings' which are characteristic
12 of a crater formed by a shell from a gun or howitzer, rather than a
13 mortar bomb. That is not to say that it was definitely not a mortar. If
14 it was, it was most likely a medium mortar. I made examinations based on
15 both types of projectiles, using different methods. Given the condition
16 of the craters, the results were not significantly different."
17 First of all, sir, my reading of this, are these your words?
18 A. Yes, they are.
19 Q. And do they accurately and truthfully depict your observations as
20 you remember them as to these two craters in the Dobrinja region?
21 A. Yes, they do.
22 Q. And did anyone ever advise you who had placed the red substance
23 in these craters?
24 A. Possibly I was told at the time that it was done by the
25 authorities, but I cannot say at this stage.
1 Q. Have you ever experienced the use of such a substance in prior
2 crater analyses that you've performed?
3 A. No.
4 Q. To your knowledge and in your military training, is the use of
5 any such substance ever been presented as an accepted practice for the
6 investigation of craters?
7 A. Not to my knowledge. But the reason for the plasticisation, if
8 you can call it that, was to preserve the craters in their original state
9 or as close to their original state as a memory to those who were killed
10 at that spot.
11 Q. The red substance, I presume, prevented the fuse tunnel method
12 from being employed by you to determine the direction or bearing of the
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. And I think we've now twice made reference to the fuse tunnel
16 method. I know it's in your transcript, but could you please briefly
17 describe for us how that fuse tunnel method is employed?
18 A. Okay. What happens is that when a mortar bomb hits the ground,
19 it impacts at a particular angle. The fuse is at the top. The fuse is
20 largely undamaged and is driven forward by the force of the explosion.
21 This causes a tunnel several centimetres in length at a specific angle.
22 Following on from that, the tail fin of the mortar which is inert, in
23 other words, it does not have explosive substances attached, continues
24 and follows the fuse down the fuse tunnel. So we have a very good normal
25 angle of incidence of the mortar bomb.
1 Q. And if we look at the bottom of this document that is in e-court
2 before us, your information sheet from proofing with the Prosecution, I
3 see here that you state that it is your professional opinion that the
4 rounds that impacted on Dobrinja on 01 June 1993 came from the L5A
5 position and were most likely a 122-millimetre projectile. Is this
6 accurate as to your conclusion?
7 A. That is accurate, but as I stated there, that is an opinion. I
8 am not stating it as a fact.
9 Q. Fair enough, sir. And is that because you cannot 100 per cent
10 exclude the possibility the -- both were caused by a mortar?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And I have another question. Is it also possible that it could
13 have been an 82-millimetre shell that could cause at least one of the
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And your opinion that the L5A site could be a source for the
17 fire, would that be due to it being a known artillery position in the
18 general bearing that you determined?
19 A. Yes, it was. And it was one which I had personal knowledge of at
20 that time.
21 Q. As you sit here today, you cannot exclude the possibility that
22 there are unknown sites in that same general bearing including mobile
23 shoot and scoot units?
24 A. There were definitely mortar units based in the same area.
25 That's a fact. And they weren't employed in shoot and scoot area. They
1 were located permanently in the Toplik area. So it could have been fired
2 from those. It's within range.
3 Q. I apologise. Just waiting for the transcript to catch up.
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. As to the location where the shells fell, you conducted your
6 investigation several years after the conclusion of the war; is that
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Therefore, you cannot speak as to any military instalments or
10 structures that may have been in that general area when the shots
11 actually fell?
12 A. To the best of my knowledge, and I have to emphasise it is to the
13 best of my knowledge, because we had UNMOs in that area on a daily basis
14 there were no military targets there at the time.
15 Q. You have mentioned the gun position L5A. I presume that would be
16 Lima 5A.
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Was that gun position monitored by the UNMO mission at the time?
19 A. Yes, it was.
20 Q. Have you ever seen or heard of a shoot-rep report from that
21 particular location that matched with the date and time and type of
22 ordinance as to the shot that fell on Dobrinja?
23 A. Not to my memory. Could I say that it was several years
24 afterwards when I was approached in terms of the Dobrinja incident, and I
25 would have not had information recorded with me at that time. It is
1 possible, due to the position I was in, that I did receive a report at
2 the time, but if so, as I say, it's long gone.
3 Q. And I presume that any such report would not have been the basis
4 of your conclusion or opinion?
5 A. Absolutely not.
6 Q. In regard to being approached in terms of the Dobrinja incident,
7 could you detail for us who approached you to examine the Dobrinja
8 incident years after the incident?
9 A. I was approached by the ICTY OTP, I presume, Mr. Chester Stamp
10 and Mr. Barry Hogan.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could witness and counsel
12 please make pauses between question and answer. Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. And were you engaged in the capacity of an expert for purposes of
16 that examination?
17 A. Yes, I was.
18 Q. And when you say the OTP, you mentioned two individuals. Am I
19 correct they're the same individuals that are named on this information
21 A. Yes, they are.
22 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move on to some other areas of your
23 personal involvement or knowledge, so I'd like to go back to the time
24 when you were an UNMO in Sarajevo, and I'd like to look again at your
25 1995 statement. So that's 65 ter number 1D441. And this time, page 4 of
1 the same in the English and page 4 also in the B/C/S. And, sir, I'd ask
2 for us to focus on the third paragraph from the top, and that reads as
4 "My experience was that before the Serbs fired their artillery,
5 they called in the team members, they made their elevation, bearing and
6 waited for UNMOs before they fired the guns. This was my experience on
7 the south side of the city."
8 First off, Colonel, can you confirm the truthfulness and accuracy
9 of this part of the statement, your 1995 statement that I have just read?
10 A. Yes. That was certainly the case for most of the firings from
11 Lima 5.
12 Q. You've anticipated my question by going specifically to Lima 5.
13 Is it meant to be Lima 5 or is this, generally speaking, true for all of
14 the Lima sites that you had knowledge of on the south side?
15 A. Lima 5.
16 Q. And I'd like to turn to 65 ter 1D439, which is a transcript of
17 some of the testimony that you gave in 2010 in the Karadzic proceedings.
18 I will be looking for page 62 in e-court, beginning on line 1. That
19 should correlate to transcript page 9734 of that case's record of
21 And again the first several lines of the page are what I'd like
22 to focus on, so if we can zoom in on that for the benefit of everyone
23 who's following. And I will read for you, sir, and you can follow along:
24 "Q. In contrast to the Serb, as you confirmed through your
25 observations, the Muslim Army often changed their positions. They had
1 mortars either on trucks or they changed their positions, as such. You
2 observed that the Serbs mostly had stationary weapons. They did not move
3 them; right?
4 "A. In general times -- in general terms, the VRS did not move
5 their heavy weapons. They kept them in situ, which made it very easy to
6 keep an eye on them."
7 First of all, Colonel, can you confirm the accuracy of this
8 selection of the Karadzic testimony, that it comports to your knowledge
9 and recollections.
10 A. It is accurate insofar as it goes. However, we were not aware of
11 all artillery positions of the VRS on the south side and particularly not
12 on the north side of the city. We were told at one stage by a VRS
13 commander that we only knew about 12 per cent of their weapons. I think
14 he was exaggerating downward.
15 Q. I'd like to focus on the other side, the Muslim side. Am I
16 correct that the weapons during the time period that you were there on
17 the Muslim side were not all being easily tracked by the UNMOs?
18 A. I presume when you say the Muslim side, you mean the Armija BiH.
19 Q. Papa side [indiscernible].
20 A. Or Papa side. Yes, I can accept that. They were not easily
21 tracked, no.
22 Q. And if we can continue reading from this same page, line numbers
23 9 through 14. And again, sir, I'll present you with the question and
24 answer and ask for some follow-up. The question was:
25 "Q. Thank you. In the southern part of Sarajevo, you saw Serb
1 artillery positions. When the Serbs wanted to fire their mortars or use
2 their other artillery pieces, they informed the monitors of their
3 intention, they would mention what their targets would be, and they asked
4 whether the monitors wanted to observe that; right?
5 "A. That certainly happened on many occasions."
6 Does that comport with your experience and recollection of that
8 A. Yes, it does.
9 Q. And when it was presented to you that the Serb artillery units
10 that you were observing and dealt with would tell UNMOs their targets
11 that they were shooting at, is that something that you have personal
12 knowledge of?
13 A. It is something that I am aware of, but you must remember that
14 the UNMOs were a very mixed background. We had army, navy, and
15 air force, very many of whom would have no experience with artillery
16 weapons and would not be able to technically examine the end product, as
17 it were, of the shelling.
18 Q. But you do not dispute that the Serb artillery operators would
19 advise them of what the target was before shooting?
20 A. That would generally be the case, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just seek clarification. When you say that
22 would generally be the case, generally be the case on the many occasions
23 where that happened? Is that, I have to understand, generally being the
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. The VRS personnel that you interacted with, the actual artillery
4 commanders or operators, did they seem co-operative and forthcoming with
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And -- and would you say that you established a good relationship
8 with many VRS members during the time you were there as an UNMO?
9 A. I believe so.
10 Q. Would it be correct to say that the vast majority of people that
11 you met on the VRS side were locals; that is to say, that they were
12 persons who lived in the local area surrounding Sarajevo or had come from
13 the centre of Sarajevo as refugees, that they were local -- local to that
15 A. As IDPs, not as refugees. They were within their own country.
16 But yes to both.
17 Q. Thank you for that clarification. The area of the Lukavica
18 barracks where you spent much of your time when you were an UNMO, did it
19 receive fairly regular fire from the Bosnian Presidency side?
20 A. It received fire on irregular occasions from the Presidency side,
21 yes. Both small arms and mortar.
22 Q. If we can turn back to your statement of 1995, 1D441, and this
23 time it will be page 4 of the English and page 4 of the B/C/S, and it
24 will be the second paragraph from the top in the English which reads as
1 "On 26 May 1993, there was a civilian area in the BSA-held
2 territory attacked by ABiH with 82-millimetre mortars. The rounds began
3 to come in in Vojkovici at 1058. The ABiH fired in total 13 rounds plus
4 infantry fire. The response from the BSA came at 1140. They fired ten
5 shells. The incoming rounds came from -- came in from Hrasnica-Igman
7 Does this paragraph of your 1995 statement comport truthfully and
8 accurately with your recollections and knowledge of this incident?
9 A. Yes, it does.
10 Q. And do you recall that there had been an agreement reached
11 between the warring parties that a portion of the territory at the
12 Hrasnica-Igman area had been given to the UN and vacated by the Serbs
13 which the army of BiH then, in violation of the agreement, took over from
14 the UN?
15 A. I do recall that, but it was not at that time. That was
16 approximately towards the end of July. It wasn't in May.
17 Q. Thank you for clearing that up for me. That's --
18 A. You're very welcome.
19 MR. IVETIC: If we can return to 1D439, and page 73 in e-court
20 and focus on line 22 of the same. It's again the transcript of the
21 proceedings from the Karadzic case, and it should be -- I apologise. Is
22 this page 70 of the ...
23 THE REGISTRAR: This is page 73 in e-court.
24 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. It should be page 70. Sorry. And
25 again, it should be the lines 22 and further. Yes, that's the one.
1 Q. Starting with the question and it will tell you the time-frame
2 I'm talking about, sir:
3 "Q. On the 5th of December, 1993, you went to Kiseljak to attend
4 a conference, and then you moved to the Papa side. You saw the
5 Kosevo Hospital, and you saw two nurses and one doctor killed by a shell.
6 You also saw a hole in a wall over 1 metre in diameter, forming almost a
7 perfect circle. Do you remember that?
8 "A. That is almost correct. I didn't see any nurses or a
9 doctor killed. I was informed, when we were there, that there had been
10 those casualties when the building was hit by a shell, but that had
11 happened some time before and I don't know when. I did see the hole in
12 the wall. It was a large one, and it was almost a perfect circle. So,
13 yes, that part is correct."
14 First of all, when you're talking -- does this comport with your
15 recollection, your factual observations at the Kosevo Hospital building
16 in December of 1993?
17 A. Yes, my answer does. The question obviously doesn't.
18 Q. And am I correct that you reached a conclusion based upon this
19 factual observation as to the fire more likely having coming from inside
20 the Muslim or Papa zone rather than from the VRS as is, I believe,
21 contained in the next four lines of the transcript?
22 A. That was my opinion, yes.
23 Q. And I'd ask you to give us a little bit of a -- briefly the
24 factual backdrop or bases for that opinion you have. Explain the same.
25 A. Okay. It seemed to me that the fire was a very flat trajectory.
1 It doesn't come in at an angle otherwise the shape of the hole would have
2 been different. But it looked as if it was almost a flat trajectory. So
3 it hit and it exploded, and when I looked to the north from where the
4 round had to have been fired I was only looking within the Presidency
5 area. It was not possible to see ground or territory held by the VRS.
6 Q. And when you said it had a very flat trajectory, would that -- it
7 seemed to indicate an artillery weapon in a direct fire?
8 A. That would indicate a round that was fired either directly by an
9 artillery weapon or alternately by a tank. It would have been fired at a
10 very high velocity, so it was very possibly a tank round.
11 Q. If we look -- scroll further down on this page at lines 20 to 23.
12 Here you are talking about one shelling incident involving
13 Kosevo Hospital that looked like it originated from a Muslim army tank
14 positioned north of the hospital, and your answer was:
15 "That was my conclusion, yes."
16 Is this the same incident or a different incident that we're
17 talking about?
18 A. That was the same incident.
19 Q. If we could turn to the next page in e-court of the document that
20 is up on the screen. That should be transcript page 9744 of the Karadzic
21 proceedings. And if we could focus for a moment on line 9 of the same,
22 and I'd like to present again the question and answer for you and ask for
23 you to provide more details:
24 "Q. Do you agree that it was your view that the Muslim side, or
25 Bosnian side, if you wish, took political advantage of incidents and that
1 these incidents frequently occurred at the same time as various
2 international conferences were convened?
3 "A. That was certainly my view, my opinion, yes. But it was my
4 personal opinion, as such, not a UN position."
5 Does this part of the transcript from the Karadzic case
6 truthfully and accurately depict your -- your opinion, I guess, is --
7 your personal opinion as presented by you.
8 A. Mr. Ivetic, you have just read out my answer. I have nothing to
10 Q. Thank you. In the information report from your proofing session
11 with the Office of the Prosecutor earlier this year, you mentioned an
12 incident that had been reported to you of some Serb villages that had
13 been attacked by the Armija near Han Pijesak. Do you recall the date or
14 any other reference you can give for those reports?
15 A. That -- yes. That would have been probably around June, the end
16 of May, June, and into July in 1993, when we were informed by the liaison
17 team in the VRS HQ in Lukavica that villages had been attacked, burned,
18 civilians killed, Serbian -- Serb villagers, Serb villages, and they had
19 been attacked by the Armija. So we requested through the liaison office
20 that we should go and visit those villages to verify what had happened
21 and we were refused permission. We requested on a number of occasions
22 when these incidents were reported to us that we should investigate and
23 it was consistently refused. So we informed our interlocutors that due
24 to their refusal, we would not report the incidents because we did not
25 have first-hand knowledge of such incidents, and we had no eyewitness
1 reports from an independent source.
2 Q. And are you familiar with Francis Roy Thomas who was the SMO in
3 Sarajevo from October 1993 to July 1994?
4 A. Yes, I am.
5 Q. Did you have knowledge that Mr. Thomas went to an area near
6 Han Pijesak and investigated a village that had been attacked in this --
7 in a similar manner?
8 A. As I mentioned, I was discussing the period from May until July.
9 Roy Thomas arrived in October, as you said. So, no, I would have no
10 personal knowledge. At that time I was working in the headquarters as
11 deputy chief operations officer, and we had reports in from throughout
12 Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and Serbia in relation to incidents occurring
13 here, there, and everywhere. So one particular village and incident
14 wouldn't really stick out in my mind. I was dealing with the whole of
15 the former Yugoslavia with the exception of Slovenia at that stage.
16 Q. We do have a report where the SMO, Mr. Thomas, is identifying
17 various villages that according to some NATO intelligence had showed a
18 similar pattern of destruction. Do you recall the names of any of the
19 villages that you personally heard of such that that would be able to
20 refresh your recollection or -- can I have the answer verbally, please?
21 A. Sorry, I can't help you, no.
22 Q. Then I'd like to move to -- I'd like to get some clarification,
23 if I can, from you relative to some features related to the aiming and
24 shooting of artillery. First of all, could you tell us how many years
25 you've been an artillery officer?
1 A. I served in the artillery corps since May 1970. I've been an
2 officer since 1974.
3 Q. We have talked about mortars in this case being -- or in terms of
4 the accuracy of mortars. With respect to mortars, am I correct that
5 their tube is not -- is ungrooved, is smooth?
6 A. Some mortars are rifled and some are unrifled. The majority of
7 mortars would be unrifled which would make them more inherently
9 Q. If I could focus on mortars, and am I correct that in terms of
10 mortars one uses a term to describe their landing point as the "beaten"
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And am I also correct that this is an elliptical pattern of a
14 certain area where a number of shells fired from the same piece with the
15 same aim sightings might land?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Could you give us a more detailed description of the concept of a
18 beaten zone as to the number of shells that might be expected to land in
19 that area?
20 A. In general terms, 50 per cent of the bombs fired from a mortar at
21 a specific bearing angle and charge would land within the beaten zone.
22 Another 50 per cent would land outside that. But you can take it that
23 the beaten zone is quite large and depends on a number of factors
24 including atmospheric conditions, charge temperature, air pressure and
25 the charge it's fired at, the distance, the angle of elevation.
1 Q. I think I have most of those. I'd like to ask you about one that
2 you did not include -- or maybe did not include, if I'm reading
3 correctly. Am I correct it also depends on the type of shell that is
4 being used?
5 A. Well, we were talking about shells being the same type, I
6 thought. High explosive shells of a particular nature.
7 Q. I apologise. The beaten zone --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- as it were, the area of that elliptical -- the size of that
10 elliptical area will vary depending on the type of shell that is at
12 A. It will vary depending on the type of shell, but generally smoke
13 ammunition and high-explosive ammunition has the same ballistic
14 characteristics, so it wouldn't vary that much. It varies with the
15 individual shells themselves. Because of the fact that mortar bombs are
16 not made to the same tolerances that are artillery shells are made, there
17 are slight discrepancies between them. Maybe just a gram or two grams of
18 weight which would make a deference. Equally, the charge temperature
19 might be slightly different than one and the next, which would impact on
20 the speed at which the explosion occurs that drives the bomb forward in
21 the barrel. Equally, the bomb having been fired goes through various
22 different atmospheric layers, and there will be changes in the wind speed
23 and direction in each of those layers even from moment to moment. These
24 are some of the factors which impact on where the bomb will actually
25 land. And bear in mind that for a 120-millimetre bomb, the lethal radius
1 is 54 metres, and the danger zone for unprotected troops is 500 metres
2 radius. For protected troops, in other words troops who are in trenches,
3 for example, it's still 250 metres radius, which means that within
4 250 metres radius of the detonation of a 120-millimetre mortar bomb, it
5 is possible to be injured. It is not necessarily the case that one would
6 be injured, but it is certainly within the bounds of possibility.
7 Q. You've used a term that I'm familiar with, lethal radius. Could
8 you please explain the concepts of lethal radius and danger radius to the
9 members of the panel.
10 A. The lethal radius is one in which one may expect to be killed by
11 an explosion of a mortar bomb within that distance. As I say, it isn't
12 always the case that one dies. One may even escape injury, such being
13 the flukes of ballistics. But generally one can expect to be killed if
14 one is unprotected within 54 metres of a 120-millimetre mortar bomb. The
15 danger area is where the shrapnel continues at such a speed that it will
16 injure somebody who is unprotect, and that, as I said, for a 120-bomb
17 normally is considered to be 500 metres.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock. Would this be
19 a suitable moment or could you find a suitable moment in the next two or
20 three minutes to --
21 MR. IVETIC: This would be a suitable moment before I move on to
22 more details.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could I also ask you whether despite the short
24 delay you are still on track.
25 MR. IVETIC: I am.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You are. Then we take a break, but not until after
2 the witness has left the courtroom.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE ORIE: And we will resume at 5 minutes to 1.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
8 Mr. Ivetic, it wouldn't be of great use to take another break.
9 Therefore, the Chamber is considering that we should continue
10 exceptionally for 75 minutes and adjourn at -- without any further
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
14 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
15 Q. Sir, you spent some time discussing the beaten zone, the lethal
16 radius and the danger radius of shells. Would I then be correct in
17 concluding from this that in order to be considered militarily on target
18 a round doesn't have to strike that target dead on but merely needs to
19 get within one of these zones or radiuses to be able to neutralise that
21 A. In artillery terms it depends on the type of mission whether it's
22 neutralising or destruction. A destruction mission is one which targets
23 very specifically a point or points in order to destroy it. It's very
24 time consuming to get on target, and it's very heavy on ammunition. What
25 the normal use for artillery is to neutralise a target; in other words,
1 to prevent the target from reacting or from acting. So this would mean
2 that when the round reached the general area of the target, it would be
3 considered to be a target round. If it's within 25, 50 metres, it's
4 certainly considered to be on target.
5 Q. And again depending on the target, if it is within the lethal or
6 danger radius, that could also be sufficient to neutralise a particular
8 A. Yes, because we're talking in terms of around 30 to 50 metres
9 depending on the type of shell.
10 Q. Now, I would like to go through some of the factors that you, I
11 believe, mentioned a few questions ago that affect the accuracy of a
12 shell. And I'd like to go through them step-by-step to try and make sure
13 it's clear for everyone, even for those of us that are laypersons.
14 The first variable, I believe, is of a purely mechanical nature,
15 the actual ordnance itself. I would first like to ask you about
16 so-called tube like. Is it correct that the more rounds that have been
17 shot through the tube the less accurate the piece becomes even if rifled?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The next variable I would like to discuss is the quality of the
20 explosive propellant actually used. Am I correct that with uneven
21 burning characteristics the trajectory of an expelled shell can also be
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I'd like to now for this question focus on the investigation into
25 the Markale incident. And as far as the propellant is concerned, when
1 your team visited both the VRS and the Armija BiH sites, you saw ordnance
2 at both locations that appeared to be not factory made. Is that
4 A. No, it is not accurate. The team did not visit any sites. There
5 was a visit by members of Sector Sarajevo under Colonel Pardon, who
6 visited the BiH sites, the Army of BiH sites, in 105 Brigade and I think
7 2 Mountain Brigade, but our team did not. There was no requirement to so
9 Q. And if you know, did those visits result in viewing ordnance that
10 was not factory made?
11 A. I understand that Colonel Pardon from his report reported that he
12 had seen ammunition which was not factory made, or at least not
13 conventional munition factory made. It was clearly made in some type of
14 a factory or workshop but it was not from a conventional military source.
15 But that's hearsay, by the way, of course.
16 Q. Okay. That's contained in the document that's been entered into
17 evidence as P583 [sic]. I'd like to ask about meteorological variables.
18 Am I correct that in order to more accurately fire an artillery round one
19 needs to know the air temperature?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Am I correct that generally speaking the hotter the air, the
22 greater range of a round, whereas the colder the air and denser the air
23 the fall of shot is steeper?
24 A. That would be generally correct.
25 Q. If we can focus for a moment on your investigation related to
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question in relation to this. Could
3 you give us an indication as to, well, let's say a difference of
4 5 Celsius decrease. What difference would that make on a shell which
5 would, well, let's say, travel on average 2.5 kilometres? Would it then
6 be 2.6 or 2.4, or would it be 3 or 4? I mean, what's the, more or less,
7 the margin of -- well, I wouldn't say error, but the margin of difference
8 for a degree?
9 THE WITNESS: It would be a matter of some metres, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Some metres.
11 THE WITNESS: That's all. It would be very minor.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So we are talking about 2.5 kilometres or 2.510
14 THE WITNESS: More or less.
15 JUDGE ORIE: More or less. Yes, I'm not debating on 5 or 10 more
17 THE WITNESS: No. Yeah.
18 JUDGE ORIE: But to get an impression. That would, therefore,
19 then be, well, let's say, less than -- certainly less than half a
20 per cent. Half a per cent would be 12.5 metres.
21 THE WITNESS: In terms -- in terms of charge temperature alone
22 that would probably be correct, sir, but it's a combination of not just
23 the charge temperature and the air temperature, but also the wind speed,
24 the wind direction and various other factors.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and if you would add that up that would then
1 lead to perhaps 50, 100 metres, and -- yes. Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: And also, Mr. President, it would depend on the
3 type of shell, so that, for example, a mortar bomb would be more affected
4 by these factors than an artillery shell because it would be going
5 through more layers of air at a much slower speed so it would be -- it
6 would be much more affected.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you give us an indication of what that
8 effect would be?
9 THE WITNESS: It could be 100 metres in any direction at a
10 distance of, say, 3.000 metres.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. And we are still talking in terms of a
12 small percentage.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, we are.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
15 MR. IVETIC:
16 Q. If we could focus on the examination -- or the incident in
17 Dobrinja. Am I correct that the air temperature and/or the barometric
18 pressure were not factors that you had available to you from that day
19 when the shell was fired?
20 A. Clearly not, but they were totally irrelevant.
21 Q. Okay. With -- you've mentioned, I believe, wind loft. Okay.
22 With regard to --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if you would allow me again one question
24 to clarify. We -- I do understand that tables are made, that fired on
25 this angle a projectile will travel at such a distance. Is there a kind
1 of a standard measurement that you say this is the standard for our
2 tables is 20 degrees Celsius, wind less than so-and-so, much tail-wind or
3 no wind at all.
4 THE WITNESS: No.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is that no wind at all? Temperature is --
6 THE WITNESS: Temperature would be standard, so I think probably
7 15 or 20 degrees [overlapping speakers] I'm not sure to be honest. But
8 it would be entered at the beginning of the firing tables what the
9 standard conditions are.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so they are known.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. Another variable that needs to be taken into account for the
16 accuracy of any outgoing round would also be the actual maps that were
17 being used by the artillery commander to direct the fire?
18 A. I wouldn't quite put it like that. The map is important in order
19 to get in the general area of the target, but after that, one adjusts the
20 round onto the target.
21 Q. Could you describe for us what in -- in the military term
22 adjustment rounds is used, are those actually regular mortar shells just
23 fired at a bearing?
24 A. Yes, they are. What happens with a normal artillery shoot, shall
25 we say, is that an observer chooses a target. He informs the gun
1 position of the co-ordinates of the target and his direction to the
2 target. At that stage, one round is fired at the target. This comes up
3 either on target or much more likely it comes up somewhere off target,
4 and the observer then corrects it in relation to his position. So he
5 will tell the gun position that it's right or left or it's up or down.
6 So he's looking for them to add or drop or to go left or right. And they
7 do that with their next round, and that's closer, hopefully, and then
8 perhaps a further fourth round is actually a target round, and then they
9 go into what's called fire for effect, where you might fire five rounds
10 from six weapons at the target. That would be standard artillery
11 conventional warfare practice, but clearly it was not something which
12 happened to a great extent in the Sarajevo area during 1993, 1994, 1995.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one other clarifying question,
14 Mr. Ivetic. One of the previous questions was whether the accuracy of
15 the outgoing rounds would also be influenced by the actual maps that were
16 being used. Now, I have some difficulties in understanding the question,
17 and therefore I think you also did not exactly address the question,
18 unless I misunderstood it.
19 If you use an incorrect map, I take it that you make the wrong
20 calculations as how to fire.
21 THE WITNESS: It depends, Mr. President, on the type of equipment
22 that the observer is using. It may be that he is using a laser range
23 finder, for example, which will give him an exact position of the
24 location, or he may be just using the bare map, in which case he would
25 probably not be more accurate than within 100 by 100 metres. If you
1 remember, we were talking about grid references earlier on. He would
2 normally give down a six-figure grid which means 100 by 100. If the map
3 was inherently inaccurate or his equipment was wrongly calibrated then
4 clearly there would be an issue of the target not being as close to -- or
5 the round not being as close to the target as it should be first -- even
6 first time round.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And that's what triggered you to answer that by
8 adjusting the next round would resolve that problem if any inaccuracies
9 would result --
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- from that combination of two factors: Equipment
12 and the details of the maps.
13 THE WITNESS: That is correct, sir.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, please proceed.
15 MR. IVETIC:
16 Q. Sir, first of all, the single rounds that would have been fired
17 as adjustment rounds, those would still be, I presume, lethal rounds with
18 the same lethal radius and danger zone as the target round?
19 A. Yes, they would have exactly the same characteristics.
20 Q. Now I'd like to ask you --
21 A. Sorry.
22 Q. Go ahead.
23 A. Occasionally in areas of difficult visibility it might be that
24 one would use a smoke round, and you might remember earlier on there was
25 a reference to gas. My opinion was that that would have been a smoke
1 round which was fired in an area of difficult visibility, because it
2 isn't always possible to see the fall of shot where the round comes down,
3 so smoke could be used to get a better indication of where the round
4 comes down. But ballistically the smoke round and the high explosive
5 round would have the same ballistic characteristics.
6 Q. Thank you. I'd now like to ask you if you can estimate for us
7 how many analyses of craters you have performed to determine the bearing
8 of the incoming fire in your career?
9 A. Not very many. I couldn't give you any sort of a number as such,
10 but it wouldn't be more than a few dozen.
11 Q. Was it part of your formal training to deal with craters and
12 determine the source of fire?
13 A. Yes, it was. I've been doing it since 1978 in Lebanon.
14 Q. And do you perform instruction in the military as to this skill?
15 A. Yes, I do. I spent three years in the artillery school in our
16 defence forces teaching this amongst other subjects.
17 Q. And --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could I just also seek just for my
19 understanding, bearing means just ...
20 THE WITNESS: Direction. Direction, sir.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Direction only exclusively, no distance.
22 THE WITNESS: No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. Is -- is keeping abreast of all developments and new techniques
1 or studies in mortar crater analysis, was it part of your job when you
2 were an instructor at the artillery school defence forces?
3 A. Yes, it was, at that time.
4 MR. IVETIC: Just check one moment, Your Honours.
5 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, I thank you for your time and your
6 testimony today. I have no further questions for you.
7 A. Thank you, sir.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, any questions in re-examination?
9 MR. WEBER: A few if I could, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 Re-examination by Mr. Weber:
12 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, did you find any evidence that the
13 mortar that hit the Markale market came from a mobile mortar on the
14 Presidency side?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Does the location that a mobile mortar, you were asked about the
17 shoot and scoot method, that that mobile mortar is fired from remain a
18 target after the mobile mortar has left that location?
19 A. It should not so do, but I'm not saying at any stage that there
20 was a mobile mortar fired at at this time or that there was one anywhere
21 in the area at that time.
22 Q. Maybe this would be --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, for the accuracy of the transcript, is my
24 recollection right that you asked one of the previous questions whether
25 Mr. Hamill did find any evidence that the mortar that hit the Markale
1 market came from a round fired from the Presidency side because now it
2 reads did you find that the mortar and I think you were asking about
3 evidence about it being fired from the Presidency side.
4 MR. WEBER: For clarity, if I can repeat the question and just
5 seek the confirmation.
6 Q. The question that I thought I read in was -- which appears to be
7 a little --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Different perhaps from and it may be relevant. If
9 you would repeat your question and then we'd see whether Mr. Hamill gives
10 the same or a different answer.
11 MR. WEBER:
12 Q. Did you find any evidence that the mortar that hit the Markale
13 market came from a mobile mortar on the Presidency side?
14 A. Same answer: No.
15 Q. If I could return or maybe more clearly ask you the question. If
16 a mortar is firing from a location, in returning fire is the target the
17 mortar or the location?
18 A. The target has to be the mortar.
19 Q. Okay. So is there any type of confirmation that you would seek
20 before returning fire on a mortar?
21 A. Well, I would expect it would be in the same position until such
22 time as I found different. With modern equipment, it's possible to
23 locate a mortar very quickly and get information to a counter-battery gun
24 to fire on that position. Mortars are inherently dangerous places to be
25 around in conflict.
1 MR. WEBER: I have no further questions.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, has the questions in re-examination
4 triggered any need for further questions?
5 MR. IVETIC: Just one.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 Further cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
8 Q. If a mobile mortar had been the source of fire for the Markale
9 incident, would you expect to find any physical evidence of the same with
10 the type of examination that your team performed?
11 A. Not at Markale, it wouldn't be possible. It doesn't matter where
12 the round was fired from or in what capacity the weapon was located. The
13 end result is that a mortar bomb hit the market place in Markale at a
14 particular angle, at a particular time, on a particular day, and caused
15 certain damage.
16 MR. IVETIC: Thank you for that answer. No further questions,
17 Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Upon further considering I have one
19 question for you.
20 Questioned by the Court:
21 JUDGE ORIE: Are you familiar with or do you have specific
22 knowledge about the analysis of a mortar impact on the basis also of the
23 speed of the projectile upon impact?
24 A. The higher the speed on impact the further down the tunnel will
25 go, but also at a particular time, the mortar bomb reaches a terminal
1 velocity which is limited by the fact that it's moving through air which
2 is causing some resistance. Everything falling accelerates at a
3 particular rate and then ceases to accelerate because of air resistance.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I was hinting at knowledge which would
5 allow on the basis of the speed of impact to make further findings on the
6 trajectory of the projectile and the distance the projectile travelled.
7 A. I am not aware of any literature, sir, that provides that sort of
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. This was one more question, Mr. Ivetic.
10 If that triggered any further questions, then of course --
11 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Hamill, this concludes your testimony in
13 this court. I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague, for
14 having answered all the questions that were put to you, and -- both
15 questions by the parties and by the Bench, and I wish you a safe return
16 home again.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE ORIE: I am addressing the parties. I do not know exactly
20 what you agreed upon as far as scheduling is concerned. I think there
21 was a request for the next witness to start his examination on Thursday
22 morning as a result of a long travel, and that in that case then the
23 parties would have agreed that the evidence of that witness will be
24 received in its entirety tomorrow without additional sessions. Is that
25 still the case?
1 MR. WEBER: Yes. We intend to stay within our estimate. It's my
2 understanding that that would, with the cross, still conclude tomorrow.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is a commitment by the parties they have
4 agreed upon, and we will then start tomorrow with the evidence of that
5 witness and not today.
6 Then --
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: I have a few procedural matters which we could deal
9 with at this very moment, but if there's anything, Mr. Weber, you would
10 like to --
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if you don't mind I'll put one quick
12 thing on the record just so we're able to later associate it. During the
13 cross-examination, reference was made to 1D435. I just wanted to put on
14 the record that this is the same document that's referred to in the
15 witness's previous testimony that's been admitted at pages 6114 to 6117.
16 I believe otherwise it would be kind of hard to associate the current
17 testimony and the previous testimony.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Reference was made to it. It was not tendered
19 do you wish to tender it?
20 MR. IVETIC: I could tender it at this moment if it would assist.
21 MR. WEBER: No objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, 1D435 would receive number.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D104, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D104 is admitted into evidence.
25 Then a few matters. First - and it deals with the MFI'd exhibits
1 P517 up to and including P520 and P522 - the Chamber has considered the
2 objections that were raised against the admission of the exhibits that
3 were marked for identification Friday the 16th of November, 2012, during
4 the testimony of Witness Birte Weiss and now admits into evidence
5 Exhibits P517, P518, P519, P520, and P522.
6 There is another matter. When we discussed recently a Rule 70
7 motion -- and perhaps I better go into private session for a second.
8 [Private session]
11 Page 5536 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. We dealt with the matter which should
12 have been in private session. We also dealt with one correction on the
13 transcript and a time limit to respond to a translation matter which we
14 could have dealt with in open session.
15 We adjourn for the day. We resume tomorrow, Thursday the 22nd of
16 November at 9.30 in this same Courtroom III.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.30 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day
19 of November, 2012, at 9.30 a.m.