Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6235

1 Tuesday, 11 May 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. If I could remind you, Colonel, of

7 the affirmation that you took at the commencement of your evidence, which

8 still applies.

9 Mr. Weiner.

10 MR. WEINER: Thank you. Good morning.


12 [Witness answered through interpreter]

13 Examined by Mr. Weiner: [Continued]

14 Q. Good morning, Colonel. Yesterday you discussed the role of fire

15 coordinators or fire executors as they provide orders and information to

16 mortar operators, and you indicated that one of their roles is to issue

17 commands or make adjustments, tell them to make certain adjustments,

18 certain changes in their targeting. Isn't that correct?

19 A. Yes. The executor determines during the correction of the

20 deviation and passes that on to the command -- to the unit at the command

21 post.

22 Q. Now, have you ever heard of a situation where mortar fire

23 executors or coordinators failed to correct or adjust gross errors in

24 targeting over a period of hours?

25 A. The firing executor, as soon as he spots an error, especially a

Page 6236

1 gross error, will stop such firing, will provide the adequate correction,

2 and then firing will continue.

3 Q. Now, I've got four brief questions for you for -- questions for

4 clarification. First, if we could look at page 16 of your report in the

5 English. It's page 16 in the English, and I'll give you the title. In

6 the table at the top of the page, and that's the -- it's the expenditure

7 norm table relating to neutralisation of "25 per cent on one hectare

8 (observed target)." Under 8H and 9I in the explanation column you have

9 the word "o/s" in both 8H and 9I. What does "o/s" mean? What does it

10 refer to?

11 A. Those are actually the means of firing, the firing means.

12 Q. And below that, it says "The norms of expenditure apply to..." In

13 the second one, it says, "Elements determined with full preparation of the

14 battalion K or O," or is it KorO? What is that, sir?

15 A. The ammunition expenditure tables are drafted for certain firing

16 conditions. First of all, for firing conditions where the firing elements

17 are set by complete preparation of initial elements or base -- or based on

18 corrective weapons of the battalion for the needs of the same battalion,

19 the artillery battalion. One of the weapons is set, which makes the

20 correction for the needs of that battalion or battery. So the correction

21 data for the corrective weapons of the battalion is something that is

22 later used by the whole battalion, all three units if we, for example,

23 have three battalions which make up the -- three batteries which make up

24 the battalion.

25 So the corrective weapons of the battalion primarily for the

Page 6237

1 mortar units is something that is not used. It's only used in artillery

2 battalions. And some errors in the initial preparation of initial

3 elements are determined by the corrective weapons to make sure that they

4 are more or less the same, and that is why this is mentioned as a

5 condition for which these tables are drafted.

6 Q. And could you tell us what a corrective weapon is?

7 A. A corrective weapon is one of the artillery weapons or one of the

8 weapons in the artillery or the mortar unit or a battery or a platoon,

9 also a division in the battalion, used to make corrections for the gauge

10 or the target. The correction data for the benchmark are established to

11 set the firing elements for a target within a certain area and a certain

12 time period. Correction to the target means that at the end of the

13 correction to the target, the corrective weapon, once that corrective

14 weapon has finished its work, the group fire will start at the same

15 target.

16 So an average weapon would be used in a unit as a corrective

17 weapon in a -- for -- or a central weapon, for example, in a mortar unit,

18 out of six mortars, the third mortar would be used as a corrective weapon.

19 Q. I have another question on page 10 of the English. Just above the

20 technical and tactical specification tables, and it's the sentence in the

21 -- in the B/C/S, it would be just above -- there's a paragraph that says,

22 "Mortars are light, heavy, and active --" "Mortar fire is light, heavy

23 and active-reactive shells." Just above that, it says: "Mortars perform

24 their tasks best in short fire strikes. Due to its construction, the

25 number of shells that can be fired from the same position is limited."

Page 6238

1 What do you mean by "the number of shells that can be fired from the same

2 position is limited"?

3 A. Because of the mortar's construction and because a mortar does not

4 have an anti-recoil system, the whole pressure of firing is transferred

5 from the weapon to the base and from the base to the surface of the earth.

6 So the earth gets packed, the earth on which the base is placed. So after

7 a certain amount of projectiles are fired, there is instability and there

8 is a probability that the mortar might tip over, and that is why the rules

9 provide that, depending on the hardness of the ground, to fire a certain

10 number of projectiles from a certain position, a certain number of shells,

11 and then the weapon is moved by five, six, or ten metres and firing

12 continues.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. WEINER: Could the witness be shown P182, please.

15 Q. Now, sir, if you look at that chart here, there's columns 1, 2, 3

16 and 4. Column 5 is missing, column 10 is missing, 13 through 17 are

17 missing, column 20 is missing. Why are some of these columns missing?

18 Are those located on another page or is there a reason for that?

19 A. If the columns are missing, then those elements are not necessary

20 for that particular firing. Perhaps they would be in some other firing

21 tables for Howitzers of 105 and 155. So those columns which are marked in

22 the firing tables are those which are essential in order to actually

23 execute the firing. Those columns which do not have an effect on firing

24 or are not there are not shown.

25 For example, in that table there isn't a column which represents

Page 6239

1 the derivation. The derivation actually represents the deflection of the

2 trajectory because of the rotation of the projectile. So if there is no

3 such rotation, there is no deflection because of the rotation, so this

4 information is not contained in the tables. So there's no need to burden

5 the firing tables with columns that are not relevant or that are empty.

6 Q. Thank you. Yesterday we were discussing ellipses, and you

7 mentioned in the innermost ellipse where there was the highest density of

8 shell dispersion, if you take the full ellipse, 50 per cent of the shell

9 dispersion would be in that innermost ellipse. You then said if you cut

10 it in half, you take a half of the -- a semi-ellipse, that's 25 per cent.

11 And then you indicated that a quadrant would be 6.25 per cent. Did you

12 mean that a quadrant would be -- should that quadrant have been 12.5 per

13 cent, which would be half of the 25 per cent, or is the 6.5 correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. So it's 12.5 as opposed to 6.25.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Yesterday -- do you want to check one of the tables or --

18 A. No.

19 Q. Thank you. All right. Yesterday we discussed the suitability of

20 the Old Town for mortars, artillery, and other weaponry. The turrets,

21 there were three or four turrets around the Old Town, kind of at the

22 corners. Are the turrets suitable for firing mortars?

23 A. Realistically speaking, that would be very difficult for a number

24 of reasons. The first one would be because the surface is of stone. I

25 don't know how stable that is. Maybe somebody else would know that.

Page 6240












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 6241

1 That's one reason. Which means that there would be a large recoil of --

2 during firing on such a surface, so the mortar would be unstable during

3 firing.

4 Second, if such a mortar was placed on the walls, it would

5 probably be visible from the observation posts in the Zarkovica sector.

6 So such a target -- or such a mortar would be subject to a direct hit.

7 In principle, mortars, because of their construction

8 characteristics, are not placed at the top of a building. They are

9 usually placed in covered firing positions in order to make them a small

10 target which is difficult to find and hit. Placing a mortar on such a

11 building would mean that you are sentencing yourself for destruction.

12 Q. Would the same apply to anti-aircraft weapons?

13 A. Yes, if we're talking about the -- about cannon, the anti-aircraft

14 cannon are not such a small weapon, so it would not be easy to place it on

15 the wall. The same applies to that as to the mortars.

16 Q. Now, yesterday you discussed the -- the sources of information you

17 used to determine or -- to determine the weapons used by the JNA on the

18 6th of December in 1991. Based on your experience spending many years in

19 the JNA, in 1991, what type of weaponry would a motorised or infantry

20 battalion possess?

21 A. An infantry motorised battalion would have 120-millimetre mortars,

22 82-millimetre mortars, anti-tank rockets, mostly the 911 Maljutka type,

23 and recoilless guns, and the rest of the light type of infantry weapons;

24 rifles, machine-guns, sub-machine-guns, and so on.

25 Q. Thank you. I have two questions relating to a map which is marked

Page 6242

1 as Exhibit P160.

2 Sir, on page 12 of your report, you refer to the effective range

3 of a Maljutka being between 500 and 3.000 metres. What is the distance

4 between Zarkovica and the Old Town?

5 A. About 2.500 metres.

6 Q. Now, there are four anti-aircraft positions also listed on that

7 map, one just below the word "Solitudo."

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. One below the word "Lapad," well to the left. One just north of

10 the Old Town.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And one just east of the Old Town, at Ploce. What is the

13 probability, when firing from these locations toward the JNA positions at

14 Srdj, Zarkovica, and Bosanka that anti-aircraft projectiles would land in

15 the Old Town?

16 A. If the units deployed in Zarkovica and Bosanka were to receive

17 fire from all of those four positions, the trajectories of those weapons

18 would not go above the Old Town. So there is no possibility of it acting

19 -- or hitting the town.

20 Q. What about Srdj or Bosanka?

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness turn the other microphone on,

22 please.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Equal, because if we look at Bosanka

24 and Srdj, they are even further away from that trajectory. They are even

25 further away from town. Srdj is to the north of the Old Town, so there is

Page 6243

1 no possibility. The gun is not facing the town at all. It's facing away

2 from the town if it was directing its fire at Srdj. This also applies to

3 Bosanka. It applies to these two positions, and it applies to Zarkovica

4 as well. To the left, east of the town, those two guns, the trajectories

5 would not pass over the Dubrovnik Old Town. They would go to the north of

6 the town.


8 Q. And as we're speaking of anti-aircraft weapons, not the

9 heat-seeking rockets or missiles, because we know those can't be used

10 against ground troops or ground positions, the bullets or projectiles

11 fired by the -- fired by the anti-aircraft guns, what calibre are they?

12 A. The ones that are mentioned, or that are seen on the map, are

13 projectiles of 20-millimetre calibre.

14 Q. And could you show us the size of those with your hand or

15 fingers.

16 A. If we take the calibre, it's 20 millimetres, so that's 2

17 centimetres. And this is approximately its size, from about 25 to 30

18 centimetres.

19 Q. Thank you, sir.

20 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, at this time I'd like to introduce the

21 diagram that he showed us from his book yesterday. I think he referred to

22 it as a snopar in B/C/S. It's that circular device. One at a time.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Are you wanting to do something with it or are you

24 wanting simply --

25 MR. WEINER: No. I'm waiting to get a number.

Page 6244

1 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

2 THE REGISTRAR: This document is P183.

3 MR. WEINER: Next we would like to tender the expert report of

4 this witness, with the footnotes.

5 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

6 THE REGISTRAR: The expert report is P184.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, we're receiving separately what is

8 apparently the addendum and then a considerable size of paper which is

9 said to be footnotes.

10 MR. WEINER: Okay.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Is that what you're tendering?

12 MR. WEINER: One is the report with the footnotes. The addendum

13 would be a separate exhibit. The report and the footnotes should be one,

14 and the addendum should be a separate exhibit, as with the two supplements

15 that were handed out yesterday.

16 JUDGE PARKER: So the footnotes are part of Exhibit P184.

17 MR. WEINER: That's correct.

18 JUDGE PARKER: As is the addendum.

19 MR. WEINER: Then the addendum. That's the next exhibit.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Do you want that as a separate exhibit?

21 MR. WEINER: Whatever would be easier for the registry.

22 JUDGE PARKER: We will treat them all as one exhibit number.

23 MR. WEINER: Including the two supplements, too, supplement 1 and

24 supplement 2 which was offered yesterday?


Page 6245

1 MR. WEINER: Okay. That's fine. And finally, there's one other

2 piece of this puzzle, and that's the corrections to the report -- to the

3 report that was filed through the registry a few days ago.

4 Madam Usher, if you could. Thank you.

5 JUDGE PARKER: That, too, will be part of the one exhibit, Exhibit

6 P184.

7 I'm reminded that we received yesterday two of them as separate

8 exhibit numbers. We seem to be getting very messy, Mr. Weiner.

9 MR. WEINER: I didn't offer them yesterday. I just used them to

10 assist with the witness. I don't believe I gave --

11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12 JUDGE PARKER: All right. Everything, if we can add it all

13 together, is Exhibit P184: Report, addenda, corrections, supplements,

14 footnotes, and the colouring-in pages as well.

15 MR. WEINER: That's fine. Sorry for the confusion, Your Honour.

16 There's several documents. No further questions.

17 JUDGE PARKER: There were diagrams yesterday, Mr. Weiner.

18 MR. WEINER: We offered the diagrams that were used. There was

19 one that was offered. All right. If --

20 JUDGE PARKER: There was a table of it yesterday, but there were

21 sketches made, diagrams drawn by the witness in his evidence which do not

22 appear to have come into evidence.

23 MR. WEINER: One was in fact offered. Why don't we offer the

24 other three as one exhibit, if we could. We'll make the copies at the

25 break, if necessary.

Page 6246












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 6247

1 JUDGE PARKER: Will you sort out with the court officer during the

2 break exactly what diagrams you tender. Make sure Defence counsel know,

3 and they will all have the number of the diagram that is presently an

4 exhibit.

5 MR. WEINER: Thank you. And we'll make the copies, too, so

6 everyone will have them.

7 JUDGE PARKER: And then make your peace with the court officer.

8 Now, while we're in a flurry of exhibits, I've been waiting to

9 hear something about the untendered exhibits concerning the fitness of the

10 accused to stand trial. We haven't yet received the reports from either

11 party. You foreshadowed they would be tendered. We left it, because of

12 the hour, to be done when we resumed. It was not done, and the reports of

13 neither party are presently exhibited, and the Chamber wants to work on

14 them and use them.

15 MR. WEINER: Well, at this point we would offer the report of the

16 Prosecution's psychiatrists.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Is it that you tender of reports of Doctors Blum,

18 Folnegovic-Smalc, and Matthews as an exhibit?

19 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour, which also includes the resumes of

20 each of the doctors, as well as that of Dr. Pressman, the

21 neuro-radiologist.


23 THE REGISTRAR: The reports by the psychiatrists for the OTP will

24 be P185.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Weiner, there arrived on my desk a filing

Page 6248

1 containing an affidavit of a Dr. Pressman, of an Elli Remmelezwaan, and of

2 yourself --

3 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE PARKER: -- related to the MRI scan. Are you wanting those

5 to be exhibited?

6 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour. That's simply a chain of custody

7 affidavit of the MRI scan being taken of the defendant -- or the accused

8 and being passed from the hospital to the Detention Unit nurse to the OLAD

9 unit to myself to Dr. Pressman.

10 JUDGE PARKER: They will each be received, three separate exhibit

11 numbers. Firstly Dr. Pressman.

12 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P186.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Then Elli Remmelezwaan.


15 JUDGE PARKER: And then P. L. Weiner.


17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. As far as I know, that concludes all

18 your outstanding exhibits, Mr. Weiner.

19 MR. WEINER: I'll sit down then.

20 JUDGE PARKER: But Mr. Petrovic, there is the report of

21 Dr. Lecic-Tosevski and the further report of the 12th of February. Do you

22 want to tender those?

23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we wish to tender both

24 reports. Unfortunately, in the current situation, due to formal reasons,

25 it is impossible for me to do that because we have not received a

Page 6249

1 sufficient number of copies. They will be ready today. Therefore, I

2 propose and it would probably be appropriate that they be given Defence

3 evidence numbers in order not -- for us not to go back to this issue and

4 waste any more time. However, during the break, we are going to make

5 enough number of copies and distribute it to this Honourable Chamber and

6 to our colleagues from the Prosecution and the Registry.

7 So there are two documents, one dated the 2nd of February and the

8 other one dated the 12th of February, and I propose that both of these

9 documents be tendered.

10 JUDGE PARKER: We will receive them in anticipation, if you

11 understand that, Mr. Petrovic.

12 THE REGISTRAR: The report --

13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

14 THE REGISTRAR: The report on the 2nd of February is marked D83,

15 and the report for the 12th of February is marked D84.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Having tidied up the record, we now return to the

17 cross-examination of Colonel Poje.

18 Mr. Petrovic.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. First, I

20 would like to ask the usher if she can see the lectern here in the

21 courtroom, because I can't see it anywhere. I would appreciate if I can

22 have it, please.

23 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreters would like Mr. Petrovic to

24 put the microphone on it, please.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I hope we shall find it

Page 6250

1 in the meantime.

2 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic:

3 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Poje. My name is Vladimir

4 Petrovic. I'm a Defence counsel, and behalf of Defence, I'm going to ask

5 you questions regarding the report and the addendums to the report and in

6 connection what you have said in this Chamber.

7 First of all, let me just dwell briefly on the data contained in

8 your resume. Could you please tell me, is it true that -- but before

9 that, can you please close the documents that are before you, and if

10 necessary, we are going to consult them if there's no other way to deal

11 with what you are testifying about.

12 Is it true that between 1971 and 1975 you were a battery

13 commander, 120-millimetres UBM52?

14 A. Yes, that's correct.

15 Q. Is it true that between 1975 and 1978 you were a commander of an

16 anti-tank T-12 gun battery?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Is it true that from 1978 you were not a member of the troop but,

19 rather, you worked at the artillery school centre in Zadar?

20 A. Yes. In 1978, I was transferred from Ptuj to the artillery school

21 centre in Zadar.

22 Q. In this period after 1978 and until 1991, were you a commander of

23 any artillery unit; a battery, a division, or anyone?

24 A. No. I was in -- at the academy the whole time.

25 Q. You told us that you left the JNA in 1991. Can you tell us

Page 6251

1 exactly when that happened?

2 A. On the 1st of August, 1991.

3 Q. Before the 1st of August, 1991, were you with your unit in Zadar?

4 A. Yes. On the 1st of August, 1991, I submitted an application to be

5 released from the unit, and my application was resolved on the same date.

6 Q. Who was the commander at the time?

7 A. The then Colonel Perisic, Momcilo Perisic. He was the chief of

8 the artillery school centre.

9 Q. In that period prior to the 1st of August, was the artillery

10 school centre and the units stationed at the Zadar garrison, were they

11 involved in any combat operation?

12 A. After I left for the centre, that is before the 1st of August,

13 1991, the units that were stationed in Zadar and in the school centre were

14 not involved in any combat operations.

15 Q. Was your artillery school centre and other units of the Zadar

16 garrison, were they under a blockade imposed by members of the Croatian

17 paramilitary?

18 A. As far as the artillery school centre was concerned, it wasn't

19 under any particular blockade.

20 Q. Were other units in Zadar, JNA units in Zadar, were under

21 blockade?

22 A. As far as the school centre and the anti-aircraft system was

23 concerned, the aircraft academy was there, so therefore I wouldn't know

24 about that.

25 Q. You don't know what the situation was at the anti-aircraft base in

Page 6252












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 6253

1 Zadar. Was water and electricity shut off from your centre?

2 A. During the time that I was there, we did not have the -- either

3 electricity or water shut off.

4 Q. Were you physically present at your unit before the 1st of August,

5 1991?

6 A. I left the unit in 1991.

7 Q. Were you physically with your unit prior to the 1st of August,

8 1991?

9 A. Yes. I was with my unit -- with my unit at the artillery school

10 centre, teaching the rules of firing, and that all was before the 1st of

11 August, 1991.

12 Q. Were you living in Zadar at the time?

13 A. Yes, I was.

14 Q. Was your family there with you?

15 A. Yes, they were.

16 Q. Is it true that families of military officers were exposed at the

17 time by maltreatment and harassment of all forms?

18 A. My family was not exposed to that.

19 Q. Were other families subject to harassment, attacks?

20 A. As far as I know from the conversations that I had with my

21 colleagues, that was not the case.

22 Q. Were there any incidents of setting flats and houses on fire,

23 infliction of serious injuries, murders against members of the JNA and

24 their families in the period before the 1st of August, 1991?

25 A. As far as I know, no. I don't know of any such incident as far as

Page 6254

1 the institution where I worked was concerned.

2 Q. In the Zadar garrison, including the school centre that we are

3 talking about, were there any injuries of soldiers or deaths of soldiers

4 in the period before the 1st of August, 1991?

5 A. I have no knowledge of that. I don't think that was the case.

6 Q. Any officers or junior officers?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Were you in the war in Slovenia?

9 A. No, I wasn't, because I left the JNA on the 1st of August, 1991,

10 and the war in Slovenia was already over by that time.

11 Q. Where were you during the war in Slovenia?

12 A. I was in Zadar at the artillery school centre.

13 Q. While in Slovenia, the Slovenian paramilitary formations were

14 fighting the JNA, you were a member of the JNA?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Is it correct that Slovenian paramilitary formations killed dozens

17 of JNA soldiers at that time that we're talking about?

18 A. I don't know.

19 MR. WEINER: Objection.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I withdraw it, Your Honour,

21 although it is relevant and we will see why it is relevant.

22 Q. When you went from Zadar on the 1st of August, did you join the

23 Slovenian armed forces straight away?

24 A. I left Zadar on the 4th of August, and I reported to the Ministry

25 of Defence, and I started working.

Page 6255

1 Q. From the 4th of August onwards, did you actively take part in the

2 conflict between the units of the Slovenian army and the JNA?

3 A. No. I worked in the first administration, that is the research,

4 development, and education administration, so I worked on the training of

5 future officers. I was in a special department within that first

6 administration which dealt with the elaboration of programmes for the

7 training of future officers.

8 Q. Slovenian paramilitary formations in the period from the 4th of

9 August, 1991, until the end of 1991 - and you joined these formations on

10 the 4th of August - throughout this period were they in an armed conflict

11 with the units of the JNA on their territory?

12 MR. WEINER: I object.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

14 MR. WEINER: The question "paramilitary formations"; there is no

15 evidence of paramilitary formations. There's a Slovenian army. An area

16 declared independence. There's a Slovenian army. And in this Tribunal,

17 "paramilitary formations" usually has a certain meaning.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Can you be precise in your question, Mr. Petrovic,

19 and we'll see what the witness says of it.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the position of the

21 Defence is that they were paramilitary formations. Paramilitary

22 formations for the reason that Slovenia had not --

23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, we're not interested in submissions

24 by you or Mr. Weiner about the merits. The point is the form of the

25 question you put to the witness. His answer could be yes or no. What his

Page 6256

1 answer is may turn on whether he agrees that it was a paramilitary

2 organisation that he joined or whether it was an army. You won't know

3 which it means, so you need to pay attention to that. There is a

4 difference between you, I suspect, as to what is the correct description.

5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'll try

6 to deal with this in another way.

7 Q. The armed formations of the Republic of Slovenia from the 4th of

8 August until the end of 1991, were they in a conflict with the units of

9 the Yugoslav People's Army?

10 A. As far as I know, they were not. I never took part in any

11 military activity from that time onwards.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please

13 speak into the microphone.

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Poje, I'm not asking whether you took part in this. I'm

16 asking whether the armed forces that you belonged to were in conflict with

17 the units of the Yugoslav People's Army. That is my question.

18 A. Let's say yes.

19 Q. Why are you avoiding a direct answer to the Honourable Trial

20 Chamber to the effect that --

21 MR. WEINER: I object. The witness was asked a question; he's

22 answered the question. He's abusing the witness.

23 JUDGE PARKER: If you want something further than "Yes," please

24 proceed, Mr. Petrovic, but the answer that we understand is "Yes."

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's the only thing

Page 6257

1 that matters to me. Thank you.

2 Q. For how long did the armed formations of the Republic of Slovenia,

3 and on how big a territory after the 4th of August, 1991, were in a

4 conflict with the units of the JNA?

5 A. I don't know.

6 Q. Do you know when the last JNA units left the territory of the

7 Republic of Slovenia?

8 A. I think it was December 1991.

9 Q. JNA units on the territory of the Republic of Slovenia, were they

10 exposed to a constant blockade and attacks by the armed forces that you

11 belonged to from the 4th of August, 1991, onwards?

12 A. I don't know.

13 Q. Did you live in the Republic of Slovenia at that time?

14 A. I did.

15 Q. In which town do you live, Mr. Poje?

16 A. In Ljubljana.

17 Q. The barracks of the JNA in Ljubljana, were they under a blockade?

18 Without water, without electricity, constantly exposed to attacks of the

19 forces that you belonged to at that time, Mr. Poje?

20 A. I did not pass by these barracks. I was not in these barracks or

21 around these barracks, so I cannot say. And I cannot say whether they

22 were under a blockade, whether electricity and water had been cut off and

23 things like that.

24 Q. So as a member of the armed formations of the Republic of Slovenia

25 from the 4th of August onwards, Mr. Poje, you do not know anything about

Page 6258












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 6259

1 the conflict between the armed forces you belonged to with the units of

2 the Yugoslav People's Army?

3 A. I've already said what my area of activity was in the first

4 administration, and that is the subject matter I dealt with.

5 Q. Mr. Poje, at that time did you read the newspapers? Did you watch

6 television? Did you, as a lieutenant colonel in the armed forces of

7 Slovenia, did you have any contact with your colleagues who were engaged

8 in combat operations against JNA units in that period on the territory of

9 the Republic of Slovenia?

10 A. I read newspapers. I watched television. I was not in contact

11 with anyone who was actively participating in any activity against the

12 Yugoslav People's Army, though.

13 Q. And you as a lieutenant colonel in the armed formations of the

14 Republic of Slovenia during the four most dramatic months for the Republic

15 of Slovenia and the former SFRY, you do not know anything about what was

16 going on with the armed formations of Slovenia, what was going on with the

17 Yugoslav People's Army that was on the territory of the Republic of

18 Slovenia?

19 A. I know as much as I read and as much as I saw on television.

20 Q. What was it that you read and what was it that you saw on

21 television, if you as a lieutenant colonel of the armed forces do not have

22 any other information about what was going on in the armed conflict

23 between the forces that you belonged to and the JNA?

24 A. For the most part, what was shown in the newspapers and on

25 television was the situation that was then prevalent in the Republic of

Page 6260

1 Slovenia, and that had to do with some conflicts, although as far as I

2 know, at that time there was a cease-fire, and as far as I know, at that

3 time there weren't any combat operations.

4 Q. So when were the conflicts and where? You do know about the

5 conflicts. Where were they and when?

6 A. As far as I know, all the main conflicts ended in the month of

7 July 1991.

8 Q. I'm asking you about the conflicts after the time when you

9 switched sides and when you transferred from the JNA to the Slovenian

10 forces.

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. How many members of the JNA were killed in the territory of

13 Slovenia from the 4th of August, 1991, onwards?

14 A. I don't know.

15 Q. How many members of the Slovenian forces were wounded or killed in

16 that period?

17 A. I don't know.

18 Q. What about your colleagues? Were any of them wounded? Were some

19 perhaps killed in the conflict with the JNA at the time?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Were they perhaps hiding some information from you because you

22 were in the JNA until the 1st of August, 1991?

23 A. I don't think so.

24 JUDGE PARKER: That is a conjectural question, Mr. Petrovic.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 6261

1 Q. In your report, why do you say -- I withdraw it.

2 Did you ever take part in any armed operations during your career

3 in the JNA units and after that in the forces of the Republic of Slovenia?

4 A. I never took part in any combat operations both when I was in the

5 JNA and later when I joined the Slovenian army.

6 Q. Why do you say on page 4 of your report in B/C/S, in the one but

7 last paragraph, the one but last paragraph, why do you say: "In war,

8 my --"

9 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down. The

10 interpreters do not have the exact reference.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm referring to the military

12 formation that existed. That was the 3rd M52, 120-millimetre battery in

13 Ajdovscina. That battery was in war, in a possible war within the 3rd

14 Infantry Battalion, the Mixed Artillery Battalion. Never established a

15 regimental artillery group. There were three batteries that we had. One

16 was 76-millimetre B1 mortars, and everybody went to their own battalion.

17 I was the third battery of this Mixed Artillery Battalion, and practically

18 I was within the 3rd Infantry Battalion.

19 Q. I'm just asking you to explain the one but last paragraph, the

20 second sentence: "In wartime, my battery supported this infantry

21 battalion in battle."

22 In which war?

23 A. I think I tried to explain that according to the actual

24 establishment, I belonged to the 3rd Battalion, although the battery was

25 in peacetime within the Mixed Artillery Battalion. But in war time, this

Page 6262

1 battery of mine would have supported the 3rd Infantry Battalion.

2 Q. Are you still in active service in the armed forces of the

3 Republic of Slovenia?

4 A. Yes, I am.

5 Q. As far as I can see from your CV, you teach certain subjects. You

6 are assistant director of the second administration, and also you are a

7 counsellor for educational work in doctrine and development for the

8 development of artillery; is that right?

9 A. At this moment, I am a counsellor of the head of military schools

10 for educational matters.

11 Q. From 1971 until 1989, you were promoted six times in that period

12 from a lieutenant -- from a 2nd lieutenant all the way up to lieutenant

13 colonel; is that right?

14 A. Yes, that's right.

15 Q. Tell us, your last rank in the JNA in 1989 was that of lieutenant

16 colonel; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. How come that for all of 15 years you were not promoted from the

19 rank of lieutenant colonel further on while during 18 years you were

20 promoted so many times in the Yugoslav People's Army? Why is the reason?

21 Why did you never receive a promotion in the armed forces of the Republic

22 of Slovenia?

23 A. The Slovenian army is a small army. That means that it does not

24 have a large number of high ranks. For about five years, or four and a

25 half years, I've been occupying the post of colonel, and of course this is

Page 6263

1 a very small army and it is only natural that you cannot have a large

2 number of very high-ranking positions.

3 Q. Tell me, how did the investigators of the International Criminal

4 Tribunal find you?

5 MR. WEINER: Objection. How can he respond to that; how was he

6 selected, by whom --

7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll rephrase my

8 question.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Who contacted you in relation to the elaboration of this expert

12 paper for the International Criminal Tribunal?

13 A. I think it was the Prosecutor's office.

14 Q. How did they contact you? Did they get in touch with you

15 directly? How did that proceed? Could you please describe it.

16 A. My former commander of the anti-tank regiment from Ptuj, Stankovic

17 once asked me if I wanted to cooperate with The Hague Tribunal in the area

18 which I actually covered as a teacher. So the commander of the regiment

19 remembered that I had left the regiment and had gone to Zadar to -- as a

20 trainer, so he remembered me. Last year I went -- I had a meeting with

21 Mr. Wiley, and when he found out about my qualifications as a teacher, he

22 proposed that if I wanted to, to cooperate as an expert regarding the

23 control and direction of artillery fire, I could do that.

24 Q. Did you ask your -- did you inform your superior about that?

25 A. Yes, I did, because I'm still an active military officer, and I

Page 6264












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 6265

1 had to inform my superior officer about that, and I had to obtain

2 permission to cooperate by the government of the Republic of Slovenia.

3 Q. Did you speak with anyone else in the period when you were

4 preparing for this testimony?

5 A. No, I did not.

6 Q. Did you speak with anybody from your unit or somebody from the

7 Defence Ministry or Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

8 A. In this specific case, I did not talk with anybody.

9 Q. So you exclusively had contacts with the Office of the Prosecutor.

10 A. I got in touch with them when they requested information from me,

11 and I provided that information to them.

12 Q. And you did not contact anyone with regard to anything that was

13 discussed here today and yesterday?

14 A. No, I did not, other than informing them where I am and what am I

15 doing, but I did not actually discuss the case with anyone.

16 Q. Do you know General Milovan Zorc?

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. Did you have an opportunity to meet with him?

19 A. I was with him, if I'm not mistaken, in January.

20 Q. Did you meet with him before you compiled the report that we are

21 discussing here today?

22 A. No. I saw General Zorc only on television. He was an advisor to

23 President Kucan. And the first time that I saw him in my life was in

24 January when I came here.

25 Q. You saw him in The Hague for the first time in person?

Page 6266

1 A. The first time I saw him in person was in Ljubljana prior to the

2 departure of our aeroplane, if you want to be specific.

3 Q. Did you and General Zorc take part in the conversations with the

4 representatives of the OTP in The Hague together?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Did you speak with General Zorc about the topic of yours and his

7 testimony?

8 A. Well, I might have mentioned which area I was covering. This is a

9 highly specialised topic, and we're speaking about controlling and

10 directing firing, and this is something that he's not interested in.

11 Q. On page 4 of your report, you say that you fired between 3.500 and

12 4.000 different shells from a 120-millimetre mortar. What type of mortar?

13 A. 120-millimetre.

14 Q. What model of mortar?

15 A. If you want to be specific, I fired from a UB M52, M75 and M74

16 mortars of 120-millimetre calibre.

17 Q. Until when were these UBM mortars part of the weaponry of the JNA

18 units?

19 A. To tell you the truth, I don't know that.

20 Q. Do you know that until 1990 -- by 1990, the UBM52 was withdrawn

21 from use?

22 A. As far as I know, they were not used for a while, but I don't know

23 the exact year when they were withdrawn from use.

24 Q. How is it possible that you don't know up until what period a

25 certain weapon is used by establishment in JNA units, and you are, as you

Page 6267

1 say, training the cadets and future reserve officers in this topic?

2 A. I teach the artillery rules of firing. So it's not important

3 which weapons you use, whether this was a 150-millimetre Howitzer or the

4 different types of mortars. These -- what I am teaching are rules of

5 firing.

6 Q. Which are applied to specific weapons.

7 A. The correction rules for 105 Howitzer or 120-millimetre mortar are

8 more or less the same except for those parts which have to do with

9 establishing the elements of firing, but the rules themselves are the

10 same.

11 Q. And you are telling us that you actually don't know when which

12 weapon was introduced, when it was no longer a part of the establishment.

13 You don't know that, and you're not interested in that?

14 MR. WEINER: Objection. Objection. That's a misquotation.

15 JUDGE PARKER: I think your question, if it was a question,

16 Mr. Petrovic, is well beyond the witness's evidence. He has told you that

17 he doesn't know precisely when one type of mortar was withdrawn from

18 active service in the JNA. I don't think it's gone beyond that.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. Do you know which weapons were introduced into the JNA units?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Do you know of other means?

23 A. No.

24 Q. And how do you conduct your training?

25 MR. WEINER: Is he referring to mortars? Are you referring to

Page 6268

1 Howitzers? These questions are meaningless.

2 JUDGE PARKER: There is an imprecision, Mr. Petrovic, and in my

3 mind, it's not clear to me whether you're asking before August 1991 or

4 January. So you might take note of Mr. Weiner's concern and mine.

5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Mr. Poje, do you know, for the period up until August 1991 when a

7 certain type of mortar weapon was introduced or when it was withdrawn from

8 use as an establishment weapon for a JNA unit?

9 A. No, I do not know.

10 Q. In the period before August 1991, do you know when which type of

11 mortar or artillery weapon was introduced or was no longer used by the JNA

12 units?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Do you know the formation or the establishment of the JNA units by

15 -- up until August 1991?

16 A. Yes, I know it generally.

17 Q. Does that mean that you only know some aspects of the

18 establishment of the JNA units?

19 A. Yes. I know the main or the basic units, elements comprising the

20 units.

21 Q. But you don't know the establishment details of JNA units for the

22 period up until August 1991?

23 A. No, I don't know the details. I can tell you the establishment of

24 the units of which I was a member.

25 Q. In the period after August 1991, do you know which weapons were

Page 6269

1 used in JNA units in the period after August until the end of 1991?

2 A. In which period again?

3 Q. In the period from when you left the JNA until the end of 1991.

4 A. I don't know exactly which ones. Probably the same ones that were

5 used until August.

6 Q. In the period after August 1991 until the end of 1991, do you know

7 which kinds of ammunition were used in JNA units?

8 A. Not specifically. Probably those ones which are recorded in the

9 firing tables, and the firing tables have not been changed.

10 Q. Can you tell us something very briefly about the UB 52 mortar? Is

11 it true that that mortar, because of its technical characteristics, can be

12 used from any surface, including asphalt, stone?

13 A. The UB M52 120-millimetre mortar has a recoilless system which

14 alleviates that problem and could in principle be used on hard surfaces as

15 well, even though, practically, I never used it on such a surface because

16 -- nor did I hear of anyone using the mortar on such a surface. It's

17 always dug in, in principle. The base is always dug in.

18 Q. Is it true that that mortar could be used in populated places,

19 with a -- on a hard surface also?

20 A. Yes, it's possible.

21 Q. Is it true that as this mortar was being withdrawn from the JNA

22 forces it was being transferred to the TO units as a weapon for their use?

23 A. Yes, I did hear something about that.

24 Q. What did you hear?

25 A. That the TO units were armed with the 120-millimetre UB M52

Page 6270












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 6271

1 mortars, although I did not ever see myself such a territorial unit --

2 Territorial Defence unit.

3 Q. Do you know which services or branch or arm of service are in the

4 JNA?

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. Can you tell us?

7 A. Infantry, armoured units, mechanised units, artillery,

8 engineering, anti-biological, nuclear and chemical defence,

9 communications.

10 Q. Are these separate services of the army which have their own

11 rules, rules for each arm and service?

12 A. Yes. Each arm and service has its own combat rules to use during

13 combat for the units of that arms or service.

14 Q. Are the combat rules for artillery the main rules for the

15 artillery arms and services?

16 A. Yes, that's true.

17 Q. Is the rules for -- rule for battalions the main rules for -- used

18 by the infantry?

19 A. Yes. It's for the use of an infantry battalion. There is a

20 special combat rule for the use of the regiment and the brigade and so on.

21 Q. The rules, are they used to provide in a unified way for the

22 implementation of combat operations of the units of the arms and services,

23 artillery rules for the artillery, and then the brigade and battalion

24 rules for the infantry?

25 A. I know that the artillery combat rules are the main rules used by

Page 6272

1 the artillery units during combat.

2 Q. As part of the artillery arms and services.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. The rules for the battalion, the infantry, mechanised, mountain,

5 and armoured is the rules for a battalion, an infantry battalion or a

6 mechanised battalion; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Is the use of a battalion regulated by these rules and defined

9 whereby a battalion is defined as a basic tactical unit of the infantry?

10 A. I think so, yes.

11 Q. Could you kindly look at page 5 of your report. The title in

12 B/C/S is -- this is paragraph 8. The title is -- of this segment of your

13 report is "Technical aspects of artillery," and in parentheses

14 "(mortars)."

15 Could you tell us, why did you formulate the title or the heading

16 of this section of your report in this way, "Technical aspects of

17 artillery (mortars)"? What does that mean?

18 A. At a certain period, the 120-millimetre mortars were an artillery

19 weapon. Lately, the 120-millimetre mortars are an infantry weapon. This

20 is so in the JNA. And that is why, in order to avoid any errors, when I

21 say "artillery," I included the mortars also because I didn't want it to

22 seem as if I excluded the mortars. That is why they are mentioned

23 separately.

24 Q. So a mortar is an infantry weapon, a 120-millimetre mortar?

25 A. Now a mortar, as far as our system is concerned, is an infantry

Page 6273

1 weapon.

2 Q. Is a mortar -- was a mortar in 1990 and 1991 also an infantry

3 weapon, a 120-millimetre mortar?

4 A. I think that at that time mortars were not part of infantry

5 weapons even though the artillery training centre organised training in

6 the infantry in the Sarajevo school centre to control and direct mortar

7 fire. In the 1990s and maybe a year or so before that, it was -- there

8 was talk that mortars would be transferred to the infantry.

9 Q. Do you know that from 1985 the JNA units was -- had by

10 establishment 120-millimetre mortars exclusively of the infantry units?

11 A. Up to 1991, the artillery school centre trained officers and

12 reserve officers to control and direct fire for mortar units, and in 1991,

13 I used, I fired from 120-millimetre mortars.

14 Q. Since you fired from those mortars, this is -- but this is not

15 something that is relevant to us here right now. What I'm asking you is

16 whether you know that as of 1990 -- 1985, a 120-millimetre mortar was a

17 formation weapon of the infantry units.

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could we please go on

20 a break now, if you think that this is the appropriate time.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. We will break for the first morning break.

22 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 6274

1 Q. Mr. Poje, since you just told us that at the relevant period the

2 120-millimetre mortar was an infantry weapon as per establishment, could

3 you please tell us why on page 5 of your report - that's question number

4 8, item A - referring to firing support, why in interpreting what the fire

5 support means of infantry weapons, why are you citing the combat rule of

6 the -- of another arm of the armed services, and that is of artillery?

7 A. In this section of the report which deals with fire support, I

8 described artillery support provided by mortars. Although mortars were

9 infantry weapons, nevertheless they were subjected to artillery rules in

10 combat.

11 Q. Do you claim that in 1991, the use of mortars was regulated by

12 artillery rules? Is that what you're claiming?

13 A. The combat rule for artillery refers both to artillery as it was

14 at the time, including mortars.

15 Q. I must ask you again. Are you saying that in 1991, the use of

16 infantry weapons, and that is 82- and 120-millimetre mortars, were the

17 subject of artillery combat rules?

18 A. The 120-millimetre mortars were subject to the rules -- combat

19 rules for artillery.

20 Q. How is it possible that combat rules for artillery refer to

21 artillery weapons? Where and when have you heard of that? Is that

22 possible?

23 A. Even though mortars were infantry weapons, their calibre and their

24 mode of their use were used according to artillery rules.

25 Q. Does that mean that, for example, if a Maljutka 9K11 rocket is an

Page 6275

1 anti-tank guided missile, does that mean that this rocket is subject to

2 the rules of rocket units?

3 A. No.

4 Q. How, then, was it possible for infantry weapons to be subject to

5 the rules of artillery? I'm talking about 120-millimetre mortars.

6 A. I believed, and I still believe, that 120-millimetres were

7 governed by firing rules for artillery and rules of engagement for

8 artillery.

9 Q. Do you know that the 1991 rule -- combat rule for artillery, there

10 is no mention of mortars as artillery weapons?

11 A. The rule that you are mentioning I haven't seen before, and I

12 didn't apply it in compiling my report concerning the year 1991.

13 Q. I have no doubts that you did use it, but if I tell you that in

14 1991 rule of artillery combat, there is not a single mention of mortar as

15 artillery weapon, does that mean that your report is incomplete?

16 MR. WEINER: Objection.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.

18 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I think he should present it to him and

19 let him see it if he's going to ask him a question about it. If he's

20 going to continue to question him about a specific rule, he should present

21 it to the witness.

22 JUDGE PARKER: That would be the normal procedure, as you know,

23 Mr. Petrovic.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Chamber will be

25 presented with this, and I now will move on to my next question.

Page 6276












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 6277

1 Q. Why in this question 8 under item (a), why are you talking about

2 fire support? Why are you compiling inadmissably two different rules of

3 two different arms of the JNA?

4 A. When I made this report, I used this rule of artillery, and I

5 believe that a 120-millimetre mortar unit should be governed by artillery

6 rule -- combat rules.

7 Q. If you please take a look on page 5 of the B/C/S report. That's

8 8(a). The first four paragraphs under this item, you rewrote verbatim

9 from the 1982 artillery rule; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. On the same page, or under the same item, the remaining seven

12 paragraphs you rewrote verbatim from the battalion rules which apply to

13 infantry; is that correct?

14 A. Yes, it is.

15 Q. Why did you do that? Why did you in the first place rewrite

16 things?

17 A. In this first part, I wanted to explain what fire support was - in

18 fact, artillery and mortar support - and that is why I describe what

19 general support was, what direct support was, and later in this paragraph

20 I explained how a battalion fire group was formed.

21 Q. Why did you not write anywhere in the report that these first two

22 -- four paragraphs were rewritten from the artillery combat rule and that

23 the remaining seven paragraphs you had rewritten from the battalion combat

24 rule? I'm referring to pages 5 and 6.

25 A. Yes, yes. I don't want to apologise or excuse myself for that,

Page 6278

1 it's probably an omission on my part while I was preparing the report.

2 Q. How is it possible to use a unit of a specific arm under two

3 combat rules for two different arms? How is that possible? Have you ever

4 come across that in your practice?

5 A. I used to be a commander of a 120-millimetre unit in the -- mortar

6 unit in the mixed division, and that means that practically we were part

7 of the 3rd Infantry Battalion, and my battalion, in its name, had

8 connotations that it was an artillery unit, and I was part of the 3rd

9 Infantry Battalion. There is nothing disputable about that.

10 Q. Mr. Poje, there is a lot that is disputable. What you're talking

11 about took place in 1970, 1971, 1975, or 1978, and that applies to those

12 years, but you just told us that from 1985, mortars were infantry weapons

13 as per establishment. Therefore, my question is: After 1985, how was it

14 possible for one type of weapon used by an infantry or a mechanised unit

15 to be governed by rules of two different arms, which you are implying in

16 your report on pages 5 and 6? We are talking about the period between

17 1985 and 1991. How is that possible?

18 A. I believe that fire support, whether by artillery weapons or

19 mortars 120-millimetres, was one and the same thing.

20 Q. Tell us why this paragraph that refers to battalion support, fire

21 support group, and that is the first paragraph that deals with infantry

22 battalions, why did you not quote it exactly? Why did you modify this

23 rule referring to a battalion?

24 A. Frankly speaking, I don't know how the rule reads exactly.

25 Q. Let me read it for you. That's page 17, item 19, battalion rule.

Page 6279

1 A battalion fire group -- do you have this rule in front of you?

2 MR. WEINER: If he's going to read a rule -- if he's going to

3 confront the witness with a rule, he should show it to him, especially if

4 it's a long rule or several sentences.

5 JUDGE PARKER: That is the position, Mr. Petrovic, but you may be

6 saved because the witness appears to have access to it himself. He's just

7 taken it from his box -- his bag.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. The rule is very short, it just has one sentence. I don't know if

10 we have the same edition. In any case, item 19 of the battalion rules --

11 JUDGE PARKER: Please read slowly, Mr. Petrovic, for the

12 interpreters.

13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to you, Your Honour,

14 and to our interpreters. Thank you, Your Honour. There are so many

15 things to be done today, and we are really in a hurry. Thank you, Your

16 Honour.

17 Q. Have you found it, Mr. Poje?

18 A. Yes, I have.

19 Q. Does it read exactly what it reads in your report?

20 A. There's a phrase missing in the last sentence quoting artillery

21 weapons.

22 Q. The last sentence reads: "It is set up by organic and attached

23 weapons and mortars."

24 Is that what the last sentence in your report reads?

25 A. Yes. That was in 1998.

Page 6280

1 Q. Does it read as I read it?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Why did you add here "and 120-millimetre mortars"? Why did you

4 add this phrase, and why did you omit the words "artillery weapons and

5 mortars" where there's an apparent and obvious distinction between

6 artillery weapons and mortars? Why did you quote this erroneously?

7 A. There was no reason for me to omit this, because I thought that

8 organic and attached weapons include artillery weapons.

9 Q. You left this out because you persistently tried to depict a

10 mortar as an artillery weapon, and for that reason, you omitted this very

11 clear distinction quoted in Rule 19, where there is a distinction between

12 artillery weapons and mortars.

13 MR. WEINER: Objection.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

15 MR. WEINER: Form of the question. It's argumentative, and it's

16 misquoting the witness's statement too.

17 JUDGE PARKER: It can be easily rephrased, Mr. Petrovic.

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think this is very

19 clear, and I won't dwell on this issue any longer.

20 Q. Tell us, Mr. Poje, in the last paragraph on page 5, is it true

21 what you say here, that a battalion commander has sole authority over

22 commanding the battalion and all units attached to it for execution of a

23 combat task?

24 A. Yes, that's correct.

25 Q. Could you please look at page 6 now. Paragraph 1 on page 6 of the

Page 6281

1 B/C/S version reads: "The battalion fire support group captures in an

2 assault firing positions one to two kilometres before company front line

3 and provides firing preparation and support."

4 Is that how it reads?

5 A. Yes, it is.

6 Q. Can you tell me, when you looked at the map that my learned

7 colleague showed you yesterday where the JNA unit positions were plotted

8 on the 6th of December, you noticed there that the fire support group

9 number 3 of the 3rd Battalion was at least 5.000 metres behind the front

10 line of the battalion. Is that correct?

11 A. Less than 5 kilometres, about 4 kilometres, and that is what I

12 said in my report, because the battalion was on the defensive and that

13 probably the fire support group was deep into the rear.

14 Q. From that you arrived at a conclusion that the 3rd Battalion,

15 among other indicators, on the 6th of December was on a defensive.

16 A. The map we saw yesterday was dated the 2nd of December, and what I

17 said in my report is correct, and that means that a 3rd Battalion was on

18 defensive. And for that reason, 120-millimetre mortars and the fire

19 support group were relatively withdrawn into the rear.

20 Q. Is it correct to say, since you have in front of you the battalion

21 rule, and if you look at rule 321, and that is the rule pertaining to

22 battalion on defence, and that is explaining combat disposition -- do you

23 see this rule 321?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. It reads that: "A battalion on defensive is deployed in-depth

Page 6282












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 6283

1 amounting to one to two kilometres on a mountainous terrain and on a

2 mountainous terrain at around five kilometres."

3 A. The width of defence of a battalion on a mountainous terrain can

4 be between two and five kilometres. And as you say, on a mountainous

5 terrain, up to five kilometres.

6 Q. So I interpreted this correctly?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In other words, in a situation that you saw on the map on the 2nd

9 of December, the battalion fire group was very much deep into the defence

10 area of a battalion at its rear borderline?

11 A. Yes. I said in my report they were on the defence and that the

12 3rd Battalion group was very, very deep into the perimeter.

13 Q. The usual depth of defence of a battalion is two to three

14 kilometres, and here we have a battalion fire group positioned between

15 four and five kilometres in depth.

16 If a battalion was planning an attack, the first operation would

17 be to pull forward -- Your Honour, just one moment. There's an answer

18 missing to my question asked about -- that's on page 41, line 9. The

19 witness said "Yes." Maybe I can read it in order to make it more clear

20 and to clarify this, because his answer is missing.

21 Therefore, Mr. Poje, the usual depth of defence of a battalion is

22 two to three kilometres.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And here on the 2nd of December, the battalion fire group was

25 positioned between four and five kilometres from the front line.

Page 6284

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. That means deep into the rear.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Next question: If a battalion moves from the defensive to the

5 offensive, if it plans to attack, the battalion fire group gets closer to

6 the front end of the battalion, as it says in the rules on attack. It

7 gets one to two kilometres closer in relation to the front end; is that

8 right?

9 A. If the battalion were preparing to attack, it would have to bring

10 it closer, the battalion fire support group, closer to its front end. It

11 would have to be positioned about one or two kilometres away from the

12 front end of the battalion.

13 Q. Mr. Poje, we are going to move on to the next question. Just a

14 moment, please.

15 [Defence counsel confer]

16 Q. Mr. Poje, on page 6 of the B/C/S version of your report, the

17 second paragraph which says: "Fire preparations for an attack in the

18 battalion mean coordinated action of the artillery (mortars and infantry

19 units)." Is it correct that this wording is not contained in the

20 battalion rules?

21 A. But it has to do with fire support in attack. So practically that

22 is what it is, fire support in attack. Any unit; a battalion, a company,

23 anything.

24 Q. Please look at rule 213, 213 in the battalion rules.

25 Have you found it, Mr. Poje?

Page 6285

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. In the second paragraph on page 6 of the B/C/S version, you copied

3 out the first paragraph of rule 213; is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, if you look at battalion rule under 213, where does it say

6 there "organised and coordinated fire in response to artillery," then

7 "(mortars)"? Where does that say? And you told us yourself that you

8 copied it out.

9 A. I did not say I copied it out. Secondly, this refers to mortars

10 as well. In this entire report, I'm talking about the efficiency of

11 mortar fire, first and foremost, and that's why I accentuated that, that

12 it pertains to mortars as well.

13 Q. So artillery is one thing and mortars are another thing.

14 A. We can put it that way if you wish. I'm sorry. At any rate, a

15 120-millimetre mortar is not the same thing as a rifle, so that is why I

16 attached more importance to mortars as well.

17 Q. You attached importance to mortars because you were asked to

18 describe the operation of mortars, and the only thing that is in dispute

19 is why you are marking mortars -- or, rather, classifying mortars as an

20 artillery weapon when it is not one. And that's what you told us yourself

21 about half an hour ago.

22 A. I agree with what you said just now.

23 Q. So it's quite unnecessary, is it? Quite unnecessary. It is quite

24 unnecessary for you. When you quote rule 213 in your report, you include

25 something which was never part of the rule. Artillery is one thing, and a

Page 6286

1 mortar as an infantry weapon is a completely different thing altogether.

2 Is that right?

3 A. Yes. Although I still think there is no problem when mortars are

4 included as well. So if we say that it's an infantry weapon according to

5 its specific way of operation, it is. If you exclude mortars, again I

6 don't think much has changed because they will always remain infantry

7 weapons.

8 Q. Please look at this same page. We're just going a bit lower.

9 We're now looking at subparagraph (b).

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You say that the artillery is a combat arm of the army that has

12 great firepower. What does that have to do with what we are discussing,

13 with mortars?

14 A. Because mortars are also weapons that have great firepower.

15 Q. If we are talking about artillery and mortars are not artillery

16 pieces, why are you dealing with this at all? Why are you dealing with

17 the characteristics of the artillery as a combat arm of the army? Were

18 you asked to deal with artillery as a combat arm of the army?

19 A. Not specifically as a combat arm of the army. That is why I said

20 artillery and mortars in my heading. Yes, that's what I said, artillery

21 and mortars.

22 Q. And this sentence where it says: "The artillery is a combat arm

23 of the army that has great firepower," what does this sentence have to do

24 with an infantry battalion or a motorised battalion from the infantry

25 combat arm? It is my assertion that it has nothing to do with it.

Page 6287

1 A. Well, specifically it does not have anything to do with it, but it

2 has to do with the definition in terms of what artillery is as a notion.

3 Q. So what you say here has to do with artillery as a combat arm, not

4 the infantry or specifically an infantry battalion or a motorised

5 battalion?

6 A. Yes, it is the combat arm of the artillery, but I would like to

7 mention once again that I am referring to 120-millimetre mortars as well.

8 Q. When you look at the next page -- just a moment, Your Honour,

9 please.

10 Page 8, please, in B/C/S -- or actually page 7, Mr. Poje. That is

11 question number 9, where you say: "The difference between artillery and

12 mortars," that's what you say under subheading (a). Can you see that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. On the following page, that is page number 8, you define mortars;

15 is that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Tell us, please -- sorry, just a moment. Mr. Poje, when you

18 define the characteristics of a mortar on the one hand, and the artillery

19 on the other hand, you say: "Cannons are artillery weapons..." Howitzers

20 are artillery weapons..." Howitzer guns are artillery weapons.

21 As far as mortars are concerned, quite rightly, in my opinion, you

22 do not say that mortars are artillery weapons. So that's why I'm asking

23 you the following: Is it correct that a mortar is an infantry weapon

24 aimed at firing at personnel with weapons that are in open spaces and in

25 natural or man-made shelters?

Page 6288












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 6289

1 A. It does not say "infantry weapon," it just says "weapon."

2 Q. Well, that's what I'm asking you. Is it correct that a mortar is

3 an infantry weapon used to fire at personnel and weapons located in open

4 spaces and natural man-made shelters?

5 A. If mortars are infantry weapons, as we already have said here,

6 that sentence could be supplemented in this way as you have proposed, to

7 say mortars are infantry weapons used to, et cetera, et cetera.

8 Q. In relation to the last sentence from this segment that has to do

9 with mortars, you say that a mortar can be fired from ravines, valleys,

10 forests. Is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In principle, is a mortar a proper weapon to be used from behind

13 cover?

14 A. In view of characteristics of mortars that use an upper angle,

15 that is to say that they are fired from behind cover, even bigger shelters

16 like a big forest, even a forest, if it has certain clearings, that makes

17 it possible to carry out transfers. So in principle, mortars are used

18 from a covered firing position against targets that are perhaps concealed.

19 Q. So as you said, it can be used from a forest that, say, has a

20 small clearing?

21 A. It would have to be a biggish clearing. I'm sorry for

22 interrupting. It depends on how high the trees actually are.

23 Q. It can also be used from behind a high building, a relatively high

24 building, four- or five-storey buildings; right

25 A. But there has to be an appropriate distance so the trajectory can

Page 6290

1 go above the building, because of course it's easier to use a mortar to go

2 above that building than to use a Howitzer cannon or whatever.

3 Q. It can be used behind a high wall, too; is that right?

4 A. It can be used behind a wall, but it doesn't mean that it's right

5 by the wall. It means that what has to be done is that it has to be far

6 enough from the obstacle which we use at cover so that, given a certain

7 range, we can actually hit the target.

8 Q. If, for example, a building is 15 metres high, how far away does

9 the weapon have to be from the building concerned in order to be able to

10 fire? For example, under a -- with an elevation angle of 80 degrees or

11 81, 2, 3, 5 degrees?

12 A. In the firing tables and in the combat rules there are

13 instructions for this. I cannot do it off-the-cuff just now, but there is

14 a minimum range involved so that in order to be able to go above the

15 building or obstacle that is in front of the mortar.

16 Q. So firing tables can be used?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. If the elevation angle is 45 degrees, that means that the smallest

19 distance between the weapon and the wall would be the height of the wall

20 itself. Isn't that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. If the elevation angle is bigger than 45 degrees, that means that

23 the distance between the weapon and the wall would have to be shorter than

24 the actual height of the wall.

25 A. As the elevation goes down, as the barrel is lowered, that means

Page 6291

1 that practically the trajectory is lower. That means that we have to move

2 further away from the obstacle that is in front of the mortar.

3 Q. So, Mr. Poje, if the elevation is 45 degrees, that means that the

4 weapon has to be at a distance which equals the height of the wall. If

5 the elevation is more than 45 degrees, that means the weapon can be even

6 closer to the wall. The distance does not have to be at least the height

7 of the wall itself, it can be less; right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Please look at page 10, of your report that is, in B/C/S. That is

10 the section that has to do with rocket projectiles.

11 Please be so kind as to tell us the following: In the first

12 paragraph, you talk about rocket projectiles and then you give an example

13 of an M63, 128-millimetre multiple rocket launcher, don't you?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. This weapon has nothing to do with infantry weapons; isn't that

16 right?

17 A. But there's a rocket projectile.

18 Q. I didn't understand you. Could you please explain that.

19 A. I'm speaking of the definition of the rocket projectile. One type

20 of a rocket projectile is a multi-launcher M63 128. This does not appear

21 in the actual circumstances, it's just a definition of what a rocket

22 projectile is.

23 Q. My question was there you mention a multi-barrel rocket launcher,

24 and you agree with me that a multi-rocket launcher is not an infantry

25 weapon.

Page 6292

1 A. Yes, that's correct. A multiple-rocket launcher is not an

2 infantry weapon. Again, I mentioned it because it's a rocket projectile.

3 Q. An Osa and a Zolja are rocket projectiles in the infantry arm

4 units?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And they're not mentioned here in this report as an example which

7 is much more appropriate than a multiple-rocket launcher as an example of

8 a rocket projectile.

9 A. Well, I thought a rocket was a rocket, so whether it was one kind

10 or another, well, I just cited one example of a rocket projectile. I just

11 remembered a multiple-rocket launcher, and I said that this rocket was one

12 of a possible rocket projectiles, a 120 millimetre one.

13 Q. An anti-tank guided rocket 9K11 is an infantry weapon, an infantry

14 weapon belonging to the infantry armed units.

15 A. Yes, that is correct.

16 Q. I would now like to move to question number 10, Mr. Poje, and that

17 is the question of direct and indirect fire. Could you please just keep

18 your answers short, and I'm hoping that you will be able to confirm my

19 suggestions.

20 Direct firing is more precise than indirect or semi-direct fire?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. When we're talking about indirect fire, the use of artillery

23 observation points increases the expenditure of artillery ammunition?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. When we have indirect fire, the probability of getting hits is

Page 6293

1 reduced?

2 A. Yes, that is correct.

3 Q. With indirect fire, the dispersion of the projectile increases?

4 A. Yes, that is correct.

5 Q. From the positions that you saw yesterday on the map of the 2nd of

6 December, the battalion firing group 3 at the Uskoplje position was able

7 to execute only indirect firing in view of how far it was away from the

8 forward part of the 3rd Battalion.

9 A. Yes. It was only indirect firing that was possible. Had it been

10 direct firing, the target should have been visible from the position where

11 the weapon was.

12 Q. From the Strincjera position -- Mr. Poje, would it be easier for

13 you to have the map before you or are you familiar enough with the

14 terrain?

15 A. Yes, I think I can go on without the map, and if I do need the map

16 I'll let you know.

17 Q. Yes, please let us know. From the Strincjera position, it's

18 possible only to execute indirect hits from [as interpreted] the

19 anti-aircraft gun north of the Old Town or Bogisica Park or the Gradac

20 Park or from the positions at Ploce east of the Old Town?

21 A. Yes, only indirect fire was possible.

22 Q. Mr. Poje, I would just like to be -- briefly go through the part

23 of the report that deals with the 120-millimetre light mortar. That is on

24 page 11. Purpose and combat characteristics.

25 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I think there's a mistake in the

Page 6294

1 transcript. Page 50, line 12 -- or actually that question from the

2 Strincjera position it's possible only to execute indirect hits. It says

3 from the anti-aircraft gun north. I think it should be to the

4 anti-aircraft gun. I think that it's important.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you, my

7 learned friend.

8 Q. We already reviewed the question of artillery weapons on page 11,

9 so we will not go back to that.

10 I'm interested -- on page 12, I'm interested in the technical and

11 tactical data. You mention here in the beginning active-reactive shells

12 with the motor on, active-reactive shells with the motor off. You also

13 mention on page 13 the 120-millimetre mine AR TF M77. This is under

14 number 1, and under number 2 you mention the 120-millimetre mine

15 TF OF-843/1.

16 Is it correct that both of these mines - and we are talking about

17 two types of active-reactive mines, that they are not mentioned in any of

18 the firing tables in the period that we're discussing, the period of 1991?

19 A. These things that refer to active-reactive shells are not

20 contained in the firing tables. There is no information in the firing

21 tables about those mines.

22 Q. Do you have any information that those mines were used in 1991 in

23 the sector that we are discussing here, October, November, December 1991,

24 in and around Dubrovnik?

25 A. In the report drafted by the UNESCO commission and together with

Page 6295

1 the commission of the government of the Republic of Croatia, I found one,

2 two, or three examples, I cannot tell you exactly how many, stating that

3 it was possible that active-reactive shells were used. To tell you the

4 truth, the last firing with mortars in the JNA that I executed was in

5 1991. Throughout the whole time that I was in the artillery training

6 centre, we never fired. We mentioned that shell. We know that such

7 shells exist, but we never actually fired such shells. So I did not

8 actually ever see this type of shell myself.

9 Q. In other words, you saw that in a report as a possibility that

10 they were used. Could you please kindly just focus on my question.

11 A. In the report that I mentioned, on several occasions, maybe two or

12 three times, it was mentioned that amongst 2.000 hits, I found it written

13 that an active-reactive shell was used. I didn't see that myself and I'm

14 not saying myself that these mines -- shells were actually fired. I'm

15 just confirming or repeating what is stated in that report.

16 Q. Knowing the fact that in 1991 there were no firing tables for

17 those two shells in the JNA, and in view of your experience that

18 throughout all of your years of experience you never fired such shells, do

19 you agree with me the possibility that JNA units had such shells is very

20 slight?

21 A. I agree that the probability is very slight, almost non-existent

22 that units, that units JNA -- that the JNA units had at their disposal

23 these active-reactive shells, especially since the basic fire tables that

24 were used in order to determine the 120-millimetre mortar elements and M75

25 mortar elements do not contain information about those shells.

Page 6296

1 Q. On page 15, please, would you look at your clarification of

2 anti-aircraft guided rockets 9K11, and could you just please tell us

3 whether this weapon, besides opening fire on tank or armoured targets, can

4 be successfully used against bunkers, fortified -- and fortified

5 buildings?

6 A. Yes. Tanks, APCs, bunkers, fortified buildings, and the like.

7 Q. Page 16 of the B/C/S version, under (b), distribution of fire.

8 Can you see that, sir?

9 For the 120-millimetre mortar, you define the effective zone of

10 projectiles -- the width of the effective zone of projectiles, on average,

11 as 60 metres.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Would you please kindly tell us, where did you find this data in

14 the firing tables?

15 A. I found it in the artillery rules of firing, in the section that

16 deals with the use and the quantity of ammunition that needs to be used,

17 the ammunition expenditure.

18 One column speaks about the effective zone of the projectiles

19 themselves.

20 Q. Mr. Poje, that is not the effective zone. This is something quite

21 different. So I'm asking you, please, to look at the firing tables for

22 the MB 120, and can you show us there from the firing tables. If we have

23 the same edition, perhaps you can turn to page 20 and show us the

24 effective zone of projectiles for that weapon. Does it not state there

25 that it is 70 metres?

Page 6297

1 A. Yes, the semi-axis is 70 metres, so the axis would be 34 metres?

2 A. Yes, that's right.

3 Q. If the firing table gives as the axis of the effective zone as 34

4 metres, why does it say in your report 60 metres?

5 A. Because the data about the effective zone of projectiles of a

6 mortar was something that I took from the normative or from the average

7 ammunition expenditure from the rules.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you are right. There

9 is a mistake in the transcript. That is line 23 -- page 23, line 20. It

10 should say 60 metres and not 70 as it states in the transcript.

11 Q. Very well, Mr. Poje. Let's move ahead. Page 17 of the B/C/S

12 version. Do you see this table that is given here?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. You took this table from Zivanov's Theory of Gunnery, published in

15 1979.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you also attached that. You mention that in a footnote to

18 your report.

19 A. Yes, that is correct.

20 Q. Do you have the report in B/C/S or in Serbo-Croatian? Do you have

21 that page in front of you?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. Very well. If you have that page in front of you.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just one moment, Your Honour. I

25 would like to find this page also for you, so please, if you could bear

Page 6298

1 with me for one moment.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, we are still confused by the answers

3 at around 53, 19 and following. 70 metres is given as the effective zone

4 and the semi-axis; and then at 22, the firing table gives the axis zone of

5 34 metres. Why does it say in your report 60?

6 And then at page 54, line 4, you put the question whether it

7 should be 60 metres and not 70.

8 I'm afraid we haven't been able to follow all of that. It would

9 make sense if you meant 17 metres rather than 70 metres, the reference to

10 34 metres. I'm using separate numerals to try and avoid the confusion

11 between 17 and 70 in speech, but there may be some other sense of this.

12 We haven't grasped it yet, and I mention it in case you can clarify it

13 with the witness.

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will clarify that

15 right now.

16 Q. Mr. Poje, in your report, on page -- on page 16, it states that

17 the width or the radius of the average effective zone of projectiles is 60

18 metres.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. For a 120-millimetre mortar.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Then I asked you to look at the firing tables for the

23 120-millimetre mortar; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. In the firing tables, the 120-millimetre mortar is supposed to

Page 6299

1 have a semi-axis of the effective zone of projectiles as 17 metres or an

2 average of 34 metres.

3 A. Yes.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We can now follow. Thank you.

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Mr. Poje, now we're moving to page 17 of your report, which

8 contains a table which presents errors in the preparation of elements for

9 group fire; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, in the first row, correction directly on the target gives the

12 values of the average error Vd -- Ex (Vd) 1 by distance; is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And Ey (Vp) by direction, and that is 1.6; is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Now, I would like to ask you, in quoting this data, you say in

17 footnote 8 of your report that you took this information from Zivanov's

18 Gunnery Theory published in 1979; is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now, would you please look at table 62 on page 427 of the Gunnery

21 Theory by Zivojin Zivanov. Could you please look at that table which you

22 attached as a footnote, which is in this thick pile here.

23 MR. PETROVIC: But, Your Honours, since it is very difficult to go

24 through it, it's not very easy to find this particular table. It is there

25 somewhere. I saw it yesterday in the B/C/S version, but I'm not sure how

Page 6300

1 I'm going to find it because everything is absolutely unmarked.

2 Q. Would you please try to find -- here it is. Yes, I've found it.

3 It's -- it looks like this. This is the cover page. We have no other

4 markings, so I don't know how I can assist Your Honours. The cover page

5 of the document says "Theory of firing, table 1." There is a dark page.

6 The ERN number and the page that I am citing is 03552520, and it seems to

7 me that the best thing to do, Your Honours, if you agree, is to place this

8 page on the ELMO and then I can put my questions to the witness, because

9 it's not possible for all of us to have the document in front of us.

10 Mr. Poje, could you please look at this page. Do you have it in

11 front of you?

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. Why did you, Mr. Poje, include the data of average error and

14 correction directly on the target elongation 1 and axis 1.6, when in the

15 table that you quoted and that you referred to and that you attached to

16 your expert report the average error and correction directly on the target

17 ranges between 0.5 for Vd and 2.2, and for Vp along the axis between 0.0

18 and 9.0? You have different values, 1 and 1.6, which are totally

19 different from the ones that eventually can drastically change the

20 computation of the error. The average error, distance and axis errors

21 given in Zivanov's table are correct, and they refer to all types of

22 corrections and means used.

23 A. That means that in the table that I made in which the average

24 error of preparation of elements for group targeting, the correction for

25 (Vp) Ey is 1.6, refers to the correction of the measured deviations by

Page 6301

1 using a laser range metre and the assessment of the hits when the last is

2 100 metres. If you use sonar reconnaissance units, then the average error

3 of preparation of elements is much higher. In this particular case and in

4 the example that I quoted, these means for sonar reconnaissance or radar

5 units are not mentioned at all and for that reason I didn't give all the

6 data pertaining to the range of error of preparation of elements for group

7 firing.

8 Q. Why did you choose the average error of 1? Where did you find

9 this figure? That's question number 1. Question number 2: Why if you

10 have taken a copy from Zivanov's book, as you have stated in the footnote,

11 why did you not copy it with all the elements that it included? Why did

12 you make a selection of what you saw fit and disregarded all other data

13 from the table that was not suitable in your mind?

14 A. The only missing element is the explanation to the table that

15 those elements refer to the correction according to the measurements made

16 by laser range finder.

17 Q. Why did you not include this in your report? Why did you not

18 include this explanation that because you thought that was the situation

19 that you just described for us, why did you not include this in your

20 report?

21 A. To tell you honestly, I don't know.

22 Q. In your job, as it is the case in our job, is it permissible to

23 quote a source and then rewrite the original version?

24 A. Not without a proper explanation. I would like to reiterate that

25 what is missing is an explanation why I put these figures instead of using

Page 6302

1 the figures from the original table.

2 Q. Why did you not provide this explanation?

3 A. I already told you quite frankly I don't know why I didn't do

4 that. Perhaps I thought that it was self-explanatory and that if somebody

5 asked me, I would be able to explain orally.

6 Q. You told us that you chose values corresponding to average error

7 when using a laser range finder. Is that what you said?

8 A. And the correction of the assessment of the target if the last

9 fork is 100 metres.

10 Q. Where did you find the information that a laser range finder was

11 used for 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre mortars?

12 A. As far as I know, one of the instruments used for these mortars,

13 80 and 120 millimetres, is a laser range finder too.

14 Q. Do you say that an infantry unit or a motorised unit of infantry

15 have laser range finders and that they are being used at the level of a

16 battalion?

17 A. I think that they are being used. If they are not used with a

18 bi-pod or a tripod, they are using it as kind of hand-held laser range

19 finders.

20 Q. Where is that written?

21 A. I'm speaking from my own experience, because throughout the whole

22 period that the units serving our school centre, the command platoon had,

23 among other things, an artillery console, an artillery laser range finder

24 and other instruments.

25 Q. You are talking about artillery. I'm asking you about infantry,

Page 6303

1 an infantry or a motorised battalion. Do you understand what I'm asking

2 you? I have no doubts that in your artillery school centre you had the

3 equipment that you had just mentioned. My question is: How did you come

4 about to find that an infantry unit or a motorised battalion have as one

5 of their own instruments a laser range finder?

6 A. I will repeat again: The units that served us came from regular

7 units. They were not part of the school centre. A mortar unit came from

8 Kranj to serve the artillery school centre in 1990 and 1991, and they had

9 a laser range finder.

10 Q. What is an RAP?

11 A. That's an auxiliary kit, tool kit. That means that it has certain

12 devices in it that are used as auxiliary tools, and one of those tools is

13 a shovel, for instance.

14 Q. Among those instruments is a label -- a level, a quadrant, and

15 surveyor poles and other things that are used in firing and without which

16 the firing is not possible?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Also in this huge pile of documents, you gave us the contents of

19 RAP, referring to 120 millimetres, including a level, quadrants, and

20 surveyor's poles. However, nowhere in your documents there's a mention of

21 a laser range finder being in the kit, referring to 120-millimetre

22 mortars.

23 A. The reconnaissance instruments are not part of the RAP. They are

24 part of the command platoon. These are the instruments and means used by

25 the command platoon and they are not part of the mortar RAP.

Page 6304

1 Q. Can you tell us, where is the command platoon in an infantry

2 battalion?

3 A. In an infantry battery.

4 Q. Sorry, mortar battery has a command platoon. Now, tell me, why --

5 how the command platoon that you say that exists within a mortar battery,

6 can you first tell me where it is located?

7 A. It is on observation post on the firing position, and the

8 reconnaissance and communications officers are both on the observation

9 posts and the firing positions.

10 Q. What knowledge do you have about the use of laser range finder in

11 the period October, November, December by infantry units or, rather,

12 Motorised Battalion in and around Dubrovnik? Do you have any knowledge

13 about that at all?

14 A. I presume that mortar units, 120-millimetre units, once they were

15 shifted from infantry to -- from artillery to infantry, that everything

16 went with them, including the weapons and all other instruments and tools

17 for reconnaissance and other purposes.

18 Q. I'm asking you about October, November, December 1991. Everything

19 that you just told us about the laser range finder was just your sheer

20 guesswork; is that correct?

21 A. I am convinced that they did have laser range finders.

22 Q. I'm asking you, do you know that for a fact or is it just your

23 assumption?

24 A. It is my assumption after all, for the reasons that I just told

25 you, that once mortars were shifted to infantry, probably all the other --

Page 6305

1 all the kits and tools went with them, because while they were with

2 artillery, they did have laser range finders.

3 Q. Very good. That means that on page 17, where you explain in the

4 table the errors of preparatory elements for firing, correction directly

5 on the target, and I have full respect for what you wrote here, was based

6 on your assumptions.

7 A. Based on my calculations. I did at least some 20 calculations or

8 preparatory elements for group firing, and I spent more than 13 years, and

9 I dealt with about 40 cases like this. So if the ultimate fork of firing

10 at a target is 100 metres, and if this is used for the correction, and if

11 a laser range finder is used, the error is 1 Vd distance error and 1.6 Vp

12 error.

13 Q. But based on the presumption that a laser range finder was used.

14 A. If the laser finder was not used, and if the correction of the hit

15 was made, then the correction is nearly equal -- the error is nearly

16 equal.

17 Q. Please try to answer my question. Based on the assumption that a

18 laser range finder was used, these values are as they are in the table?

19 A. Yes.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. On page 19 of your report - that's the table of expenditure of

23 ammunition for a 120-millimetre mortar - can you tell us, please, does

24 this table indicate, under columns B, C, D, E, F in the upper part,

25 referring to unobserved targets, does this table mean that for

Page 6306

1 neutralising only 25 per cent of the target it is necessary to spend the

2 quoted quantities of ammunition listed under the last column to the

3 right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. This is referring to an unobserved target, and that means that is

6 a target that cannot be seen from the mortar firing position?

7 A. And it also cannot be seen from the observation point. That is

8 why it is called an unobserved target.

9 Q. All right. For any higher degree of neutralisation of a target, a

10 proportionate increase of ammunition expenditure is to be expected.

11 A. Yes. If you want to achieve 90 per cent, you have to triple the

12 quantity of the ammunition used.

13 Q. So, for example, to neutralise 50 per cent - this is the example

14 under C - of a platoon of mortars under cover, it is necessary to have 720

15 shells; is that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. For a higher degree of neutralisation, higher than 50 per cent,

18 then?

19 A. For 80 per cent neutralisation, then it has to be increased nine

20 times.

21 Q. So to neutralise -- to neutralise a platoon of mortars under cover

22 by 80 per cent, it is necessary to have 2.160 shells?

23 A. If that is your calculation, then yes.

24 Q. Well, I multiplied 240 by 9.

25 A. Yes.

Page 6307

1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, I would

2 like to suggest to take a break now if you think the time is right.

3 JUDGE PARKER: I assume it would be convenient, Mr. Petrovic.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

5 --- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 12.49 p.m.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. Mr. Poje, before we move on to the next subject, could you please

10 clarify something for us. Is it correct that according to establishment,

11 infantry units of the JNA, and I primarily refer to infantry rules and all

12 other relevant indicators, is an 82-millimetre mortar a company mortar?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Is it correct that a 120-millimetre mortar is a battalion mortar?

15 A. Yes.

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

17 P132, which is in tab 30 of the Jokic binder. So it's the Jokic binder,

18 tab 30. The exhibit number is P132. Yesterday my learned friend,

19 Mr. Weiner, showed the same map.

20 Q. Mr. Poje, could you please fold the map so that we can see the

21 town of Dubrovnik and the position of the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd

22 Brigade. Have you got that section of the map?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Could you please place it on the ELMO, that particular section, so

25 that everybody could follow.

Page 6308

1 Mr. Poje, just briefly, since of course you are familiar with

2 these maps, can we clarify some elements of the combat deployment of the

3 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Brigade. First of all, I would like to ask you

4 whether you can indicate this with a pointer on the ELMO. Could you

5 please use the pointer to indicate what we need.

6 First of all, from the island of Lokrum, north-east you can see a

7 small flag where it says "3," and an ellipsis can be seen there.

8 A. [Indicates]

9 Q. That's it. Tell us, please, Mr. Poje, is that the position of the

10 anti-tank company of the 3rd Battalion?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. This little flag, does it depict the command post?

13 A. Yes, the forward command post.

14 Q. So the forward command post. From the point of view of

15 establishment, as you said to us yesterday, within the establishment in

16 1991 in the JNA, within this company of this battalion, is there a

17 recoilless 82-millimetre gun there?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. A 911 Maljutka?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. That's as far as the anti-tank company is concerned and its

22 position?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Could you please just answer so that we have an audible answer.

25 Now, if we look at the north-west in the region of the village of

Page 6309

1 Bosanka. The 1st Motorised Company of the 3rd Battalion.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Further on north-east, the 2nd Company of the 3rd Battalion?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And north-west, at the end of this area that you're indicating on

6 the ELMO, the 3rd Motorised Company of the 3rd Battalion. Thank you.

7 So now could you please indicate Uskoplje for us.

8 A. [Indicates]

9 Q. And the battalion fire support group of the 3rd Motorised

10 Battalion.

11 A. I'm indicating it now.

12 Q. So let us summarise what you've said to us now. If we look at the

13 last battalion fire support group 3 in Uskoplje and these front end

14 positions of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Motorised Companies, the distance is

15 between 4.000 to 5.000 metres?

16 A. Yes. So the distance is about 4, 4.5 kilometres.

17 Q. All right. From the point of view of establishment, the Infantry

18 Company or, rather, Motorised Infantry Company, has 82-millimetre mortars;

19 is that right, according to establishment?

20 Mr. Poje, could you please speak up, because otherwise we will not

21 have your answers in the transcript. I saw you answer but we haven't got

22 it recorded.

23 A. Yes, yes.

24 Q. So within a motorised company there are 82-millimetre

25 mortars, right?

Page 6310

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. That pertains to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Motorised Companies

3 respectively?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. The battalion fire support group has within it, as we already

6 mentioned, battalion mortars or, rather, 120-millimetre mortars?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Please look at the map again if it's not a problem. In the

9 western area, that is Petrovo Selo, that is to the north of Rijeka

10 Dubrovacka, can you see that area? That's where the 3rd Battalion of the

11 5th Brigade is. Can you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you see in the area of Pobrezje the position of an

14 82-millimetre mortar?

15 A. Yes, I can see that.

16 Q. Further to the north, in the area of Greblje, do you see the

17 battalion fire support group of the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Brigade?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. The command post of the battalion is approximately in the area of

20 Mocina, somewhere between the battalion fire support group and the mortars

21 at the front end, the 82-millimetre mortars.

22 A. Yes, I can see that.

23 Q. Can you tell us whether you are familiar with the area of Babin

24 Kuk? Can you indicate it for us, please.

25 A. [Indicates]

Page 6311

1 Q. Yes, that's right. That's the area of Babin Kuk. Then the

2 harbour of Gruz, can you see that?

3 A. [Indicates]

4 Q. The area of Lapad? A bit further to south, right.

5 A. [Indicates]

6 Q. These areas that you indicated just now, Babin Kuk, Lapad, the

7 harbour of Gruz, in view of the distance, in terms of the range of the 3rd

8 Battalion of the 5th Brigade and the mortar units right behind the front

9 end of the infantry line of the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Brigade.

10 A. The area that we just looked at; Babin Kuk, Lapad, and the harbour

11 of Gruz, the mortars --

12 Q. I'm asking you -- could you please focus on the 3rd Battalion of

13 the 5th Brigade.

14 A. The 3rd Battalion of the 5th Brigade. Yes, possibly, possibly.

15 So with 120 and 82-millimetre mortars, the areas that you mentioned can be

16 targeted.

17 Q. Is it possible to target the lower end of the port of Gruz from

18 there, the southernmost part of the harbour of Gruz?

19 A. Just a moment. Let me try to measure it somehow.

20 Q. Have you got a ruler, sir?

21 A. I probably do. I would like to mention that the measurement is

22 not very precise because this is a photocopied map, and the photocopy was

23 made in a way that would not give the exact distances involved.

24 Q. Let's try.

25 A. 120-millimetre mortar of the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Brigade,

Page 6312

1 then the fire support group, the battalion fire support group, the area

2 that you mentioned, the range, or rather, distance is four to five

3 kilometres. So it is possible to target with these mortars.

4 Q. All right. Please measure -- thank you. Please measure the

5 distance between the 3rd -- or, rather, the battalion fire support group

6 of the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Brigade or, rather, the position in

7 Uskoplje and the Old Town.

8 A. About five and a half kilometres.

9 Q. Five and a half kilometres?

10 MR. WEINER: Excuse me, Your Honour, there seems to be a problem

11 with the transcript again. It says, "Please measure the distance between

12 the 3rd -- or, rather, the battalion fire support group of the 3rd

13 Battalion of the 5th Brigade or, rather, the position in Uskoplje and the

14 Old Town." Does he want us to measure the one from the 3rd Battalion of

15 the 5th Brigade, that fire support group, to the Old Town, or does he want

16 us to measure from Uskoplje to the Old Town again? That's two different

17 concepts.

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my colleague is right.

19 I asked the witness to measure the distance between Uskoplje and the Old

20 Town. That is what we did. Unfortunately, on page 68 in the transcript

21 in lines 18, 19, 20, that cannot be reflected, but that is what I wished

22 to ask the witness, the distance between the battalion fire support group

23 of the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd group. That is what I asked.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that right now they did not

25 hear the last sentence of what Mr. Petrovic said. He was not speaking

Page 6313

1 into the microphone. Thank you.

2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. It is 5.700 -- 5.770 metres, Mr. Poje, according to our

4 calculations. So that would be roughly what you said as well.

5 Very briefly, we'll move on to this later as well, could you

6 explain to us how come in addendum 1 and addendum 2 that you attached with

7 your report, could you please explain the methodology to us. Were you

8 given certain tasks by the OTP? For example, the position of the mortar,

9 the position of the mortar, say at Zarkovica, the position of the

10 120-millimetre mortar, or mortar combat position at Zarkovica 120

11 millimetres or the position of a 120-millimetre mortar at Bosanka or a

12 mortar position, again of a 120-millimetre mortar at Bosanka, how did you

13 get these tasks? How were you given these tasks? Did my colleagues ask

14 you to calculate particular values given a particular position or a

15 particular weapon? Was that the procedure according to which you worked?

16 Is that how you made these calculations? Is that what is in the two

17 addenda?

18 A. I wanted to look at the dispersion pattern and to calculate it, so

19 then I looked at the previously mentioned battalion, I took the possible

20 positions in the area of Zarkovica, then the area of Bosanka, and as a

21 hypothesis, also the area of Srdj. Then on the basis of the map that we

22 saw yesterday, as for the targets that are around the Old Town, I

23 calculated what the dispersion pattern or ellipse is.

24 Q. Now, what I do not understand and what I would like you to explain

25 to us is the following: When we know that at the position of Ploce and --

Page 6314

1 or, rather, the anti-tank position at Zarkovica and at Bosanka and at the

2 position of the 3rd Motorised Company at Strincjera, there are no

3 120-millimetre mortars, why did you calculate the activities of a

4 120-millimetre mortar from this position when there weren't any there?

5 A. According to the report that we've already mentioned, too, that is

6 to say concerning the town after the 6th of December, and in this report

7 it says that mortars were shooting at the town, 82-millimetre mortars, and

8 120-millimetre mortars as well as Maljutkas, quite simply I hypothetically

9 took 82-millimetre mortars and 120-millimetre mortars at these locations.

10 I'm not claiming that they are at those locations. So that's the

11 calculation I did from those locations.

12 Q. So quite simply, hypothetically, made this calculation, perhaps if

13 there were mortars there, 82-millimetre or 120-millimetre mortars. On the

14 basis of that hypothesis, you did addendum 1 and addendum 2.

15 A. Yes, because as we saw on the map, the mortar 82-millimetres are

16 not drawn onto the map, so I just proceeded upon the assumption of what

17 were to happen if 82 mortars were there. We can also see that the

18 120-millimetre mortars are represented in the back as part of the firing

19 group. So did I that theoretically to look at the dispersion pattern if

20 there was a position at Zarkovica. I was in that area, and you could see

21 that there were positions there at some point. I'm not saying whether

22 they were there on the 6th, but there were some positions.

23 So it was my normal assumption that perhaps there were mortars

24 positioned in that area.

25 Q. I will show you now an exhibit, a Defence exhibit, and that is --

Page 6315

1 this is the testimony of Admiral Jokic on page 379 [as interpreted] of the

2 transcript. Admiral Jokic -- 397 [as interpreted]. He describes the

3 position and composition of units around Dubrovnik, and that is primarily

4 the 472nd Brigade. He describes the first unit in the region of Zarkovica

5 and Dubac, saying that it had 82-millimetre mortars.

6 MR. WEINER: Objection.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

8 MR. WEINER: It's unclear what they're referring to. It says

9 testimony, which I am assuming trial testimony of Admiral Jokic, and then

10 he says a Defence exhibit, and then he talks about page 379 of a

11 transcript.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

13 JUDGE PARKER: As I understand Mr. Petrovic, it's page 372 of the

14 transcript in the course of the evidence of Admiral Jokic and he's going

15 to show the witness a Defence exhibit that was dealt with at that point.

16 Am I nearly right, Mr. Petrovic?

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, see where the problem

18 is. The problem is that the transcript is not correct. It does not

19 follow what I'm saying. We have the number 379 here. I said 3979. I'm

20 talking about the transcript all the time. I'm speaking of the transcript

21 before this Trial Chamber, so I am quoting what is an exhibit in the sense

22 that it is the transcript before the Trial Chamber and page of that

23 transcript is 3979. I'm not thinking of the interviews, because my

24 learned colleague, of course, knows that an interview cannot be an exhibit

25 in this case. It has not been admitted as an exhibit. So this is not

Page 6316

1 what I'm talking about.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Well, we have cleared up the page. I think it

3 would be helpful in future if you referred only to transcript and not

4 regarded it as an exhibit, and that will minimise the scope for any

5 confusion. Thank you. 3979. We've got the page.

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I hope that it is

7 clear now. So 3979.

8 Q. It states there: "The 1st Company of the -- the 1st Motorised

9 Company, in the Dubac-Zarkovica area, has 82-millimetre mortars. The 2nd

10 Motorised Company, in the Bosanka sector, has 82-millimetre mortars. The

11 3rd Motorised Company, in Strincjera, has 82-millimetre mortars."

12 Could you please tell me first whether this description

13 corresponds with the formations that are usual when we have motorised

14 companies of a motorised battalion in the JNA?

15 A. Yes, I think so.

16 Q. Is the component of a formation of a motorised company a platoon,

17 an 82-millimetre mortar platoon? Is that a normal part of the motorised

18 company?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Is it usual that a platoon, an 82-millimetre mortar platoon, is

21 situated directly next to the combat positions of a motorised company?

22 A. In principle it should be somewhat to the rear of the front part

23 of the company disposition.

24 Q. So at a slight distance behind.

25 A. Yes. It's not on the front line, but it is a little bit behind.

Page 6317

1 Q. So a couple of hundred metres in the back.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So this is the usual formation of a motorised company of a

4 motorised battalion in the JNA.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. When a motorised company of the motorised battalion is used in

7 accordance with the doctrine or the rules of the battalion, the mortar

8 platoon follows in the way that you described the platoons of the

9 motorised company itself?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. The doctrine and the manner in which a motorised company is used

12 does not leave room for movements to be made, for separations to be made

13 into one platoon and another platoon; is that right?

14 A. In principle, a unit the strength of a platoon is not usually

15 divided into several parts. It supports the unit as a whole.

16 Q. So we cannot expect an 82-millimetre mortar platoon to be severed

17 from the platoons of the actual motorised platoons of the mechanised --

18 the motorised company, but they would be concentrated?

19 A. Otherwise that would weaken the effectiveness of the support. The

20 greater the concentration of the unit - I'm talking about the mortar unit

21 - the greater the effectiveness is of the support.

22 Q. So motorised company platoons, infantry platoons, and the mortar

23 platoons would remain, as a rule, in the same zone in accordance with the

24 assignment of the motorised company; is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

Page 6318

1 Q. On page 3980 of the transcript, Admiral Jokic describes the

2 composition of a battalion fire support group, the 3rd Battalion of the

3 472nd Brigade at Uskoplje, and gives -- and states there that as part of

4 the battalion firing group we have 82-millimetre mortars.

5 My question is as follows: First, what you told us earlier, what

6 is contained in addendum 1 and addendum 2 referring to the use of mortars

7 of 120 millimetres from the sector of Zarkovica, Bosanka and Srdj is, as

8 you have said and I understood, that it is your assumption that perhaps it

9 was like that.

10 A. Yes. I took those points as the most forward points, and I

11 proceeded on the assumption that if 120-millimetre mortars were there,

12 what then would be the effect of the fire from those positions.

13 Q. So everything that is stated in your report about mortar positions

14 at Zarkovica, Bosanka, and Srdj, 120-millimetre mortar positions, is,

15 let's say, your assumption, and all the conclusions are also a part of

16 that assumption that perhaps 120-millimetre mortars were located there?

17 A. Yes, that is exactly so.

18 Q. If 120-millimetre mortars were not deployed at those positions,

19 you will agree with me that your conclusions from that section of the

20 report are not relevant to our topic that we're discussing here today?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Mr. Poje, could you please clarify for us something about the

23 firing tables, the mortar firing tables. So please tell us the table

24 values of dispersion which are given in columns 11 and 12 of the mortar

25 firing tables, and that is, for an example, in Exhibit P172 [as

Page 6319

1 interpreted], those table values in column 11 and 12 are table values of

2 dispersal in ideal conditions; is that correct?

3 A. Vd and Vp are semi-axes of the dispersion ellipse as a result of

4 accidental errors that occur during firing.

5 Q. And now my next question is: What are the table conditions?

6 A. The table conditions are --

7 Q. Just one moment. I will put the question to you like this: Are

8 the table conditions such that the temperature of the air is 15 degrees?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Are the table conditions such that there is no wind?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. The table conditions are such that the air pressure is 1.013 MBs?

13 A. One thousand millibars for a 120-millimetre mortar.

14 Q. Very well. And those table conditions for the 120-millimetre

15 mortar are that the firing targets and the firing position are along one

16 plane?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do the table conditions provide for the firing positions and the

19 target to be at the same altitude?

20 MR. WEINER: Your Honour.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

22 MR. WEINER: Just very quickly. Sorry to interrupt. At page 75,

23 line 9, it says Exhibit 172. It should be 182. At some future time

24 looking at this we will be confused if we don't correct it.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

Page 6320

1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Poje, if these values, these table values of dispersal are

3 provided for in the conditions that we have just described, would you

4 agree with me that realistic or realtime dispersal would be different from

5 the values given in the tables?

6 A. In true meteorological and ballistic dispersion -- dispersal

7 conditions based on the tables, we calculate the meteorological and the

8 ballistic characteristics and conditions, and we make also topographical

9 corrections.

10 Q. I think you answered my question but a little -- in a little more

11 detail. The question is: Are the table dispersion values different from

12 realtime, actual dispersal?

13 A. Yes. The dispersion provided from the -- before the first

14 projectile is fired is theoretical. So the first projectile can fall

15 further or closer from the actual target.

16 When the first projectile actually hits, when we have a first hit,

17 then we are talking about real firing conditions and not on preparation.

18 So by carrying out corrections, we correct errors which occur due to

19 meteorological and ballistic conditions.

20 Q. When you were looking at the potential dispersal that you describe

21 in addendum 1 and addendum 2 to your report, did you actually review the

22 concrete firing conditions in the area that we are talking about in the

23 period of October, November, and December 1991?

24 A. I'm talking about dispersal when the centre hit -- hits the centre

25 of the target. So that means that correction is finished and now we move

Page 6321

1 to group firing. Once again, that means that the calculations that I

2 provided refer to the process once the correction is finished, once the

3 median hit hits the target.

4 Q. In your realistic assessment of dispersal, did you take into

5 account the conditions prevalent in the area that we are talking about in

6 October, November, and December?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Did you take into account the conditions as they were on the 6th

9 of December, 1991?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Did you take into account the surface conditions, the differences

12 in altitude?

13 A. Yes, I did. Zarkovica is at an approximate altitude of 300

14 metres, and the areas around Dubrovnik are at about 50 metres.

15 Q. Is there a difference in dispersal, keeping in mind the

16 differences in altitude between the firing positions and the target

17 positions?

18 A. There is no difference, only if the target is on a forward or a

19 backward slope, then you would increase or decrease the dispersal. But if

20 the target is above or below the firing position, but if we're talking

21 about a flat surface, then there is no change in the dispersal.

22 Q. How much does the range change if there is a difference in

23 altitude of the firing position and the target?

24 A. Depending on the firing distance, this would be an average value

25 of 100 metres.

Page 6322

1 Q. Could you please take the firing tables and look at the graph for

2 the sixth charge of the 120-millimetre mortar, if it's not a problem.

3 Could you please put that on the ELMO.

4 So could we look at the graph for the sixth charge. Could you

5 please move it up a little bit so that we can see the distance up to six

6 kilometres but also so that we can see the beginning, because we need to

7 see the vertical axis on the -- horizontal axis on the left side.

8 Q. These are ellipses and the parabolas of the trajectory of the

9 mortar projectile; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Could you please look at the parabola at six kilometres which

12 departs from 0.0, from 0 altitude where the range is 6 kilometres, where

13 the range at the same altitude is 6 kilometres. Do you see that?

14 A. [Indicates]

15 Q. Could you please show -- Mr. Poje, could you please explain to the

16 Trial Chamber what these numbers mean on the left, minus 0.5, 0, 0.5. Is

17 this the altitude?

18 A. Yes, this is the altitude taken at half kilometre increments.

19 Q. Yes, that's correct. So 0 is the altitude that corresponds to the

20 altitude of the target. 0.5 is where the target is below the altitude of

21 the target [as interpreted].

22 Please, let's not speak at the same time, Mr. Poje. I apologise.

23 So minus 0.5 is 500 metres. So it is when the target is 500

24 metres in altitude below the firing position from where the mortar

25 projectile was fired?

Page 6323

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And now when we are looking at 6 kilometres at the same altitude,

3 so the target is at 0 and the firing position is at 0 altitude also, could

4 you please look at minus 500 metres altitude how much the range is

5 increased, by how much?

6 A. By 230 metres. So at minus 500 altitude, the range is increased

7 by 230 metres.

8 Q. Thank you. So how much is the range increased at minus 350

9 metres? Minus 350 metres.

10 A. Approximately by 100 or 120 metres.

11 Q. So that means that if this is about 250 metres, at minus 350

12 metres, according to our calculation, it would be somewhat below 200

13 metres, the increase of range, I mean.

14 A. I think a little less than that.

15 Q. But in any case, around 150 metres.

16 A. Yes, that's correct.

17 Q. If -- excuse me for a second. We'll go back to this, Mr. Poje.

18 Let me just move on to some other issues.

19 You told us that in your calculations, you did not take into

20 account meteorological conditions prevailing in October, November, and

21 December, or particularly on the 6th of December. So let me ask you the

22 following: Generally speaking, are you familiar with the weather

23 conditions in the area of Dubrovnik that prevail in these winter months

24 or, rather, late autumn months?

25 A. I presume that it is similar to the conditions in Zadar. There

Page 6324

1 are winter winds and the temperatures are rather low.

2 Q. Do you know that in this region of this continental rift there is

3 a clash between the continental and Mediterranean climates?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. According to your experience, do you know of the north-easterly

6 wind called bura, which blows and which is very much present in this

7 region in wintertime?

8 A. Yes. I know about bura, and I know what it means.

9 Q. Is bura by definition a north-easterly wind that blows in general

10 from the land towards the sea?

11 A. I think that it blows from the north to the south, to be more

12 precise. It might change directions, and it is possible that it might

13 blow from either north-easterly direction or north-westerly direction, but

14 most definitely from the shore to the sea.

15 Q. From the shore to the sea. That's the shortest possible

16 definition of bura; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. What is the impact of a lateral wind on dispersal of shells along

19 the axis?

20 A. Lateral winds shift the trajectory along the axis either to the

21 left or to the right in respect to the direction of firing.

22 Q. Is it true that a lateral wind affects the deviation more in case

23 of mortar shells than artillery shells?

24 A. Yes, because of a very sharp curve of the trajectory, a lateral

25 wind, and also due to the relatively small initial speed of the shell, the

Page 6325

1 wind affects more mortar shell trajectories than other artillery weapon

2 trajectories.

3 Q. If there is a strong lateral wind, is it sufficient to measure

4 only the wind close to the surface at the firing position?

5 A. If we do not have meteorological stations that can provide us with

6 meteorological data, then to a certain extent it is a useful information

7 based on which it is possible to calculate meteorological corrections

8 caused by wind, but because of a relatively low height at which wind is

9 being measured and high coordinates, these kind of corrections due to wind

10 is relatively inaccurate. I cannot say exactly in some units, but

11 depending on the wind itself and the instruments used to determine the

12 velocity and the direction of wind.

13 Q. Let us try to simplify this. If we are measuring only the wind

14 close to the surface at the -- during firing, only during firing a mortar

15 shell, the error may be quite substantial.

16 A. Yes, that is possible. We even did some calculations, and we

17 concluded that in certain cases it is even better not to take into account

18 corrections valid at the level close to the surface but just to take them

19 into consideration.

20 Q. Is it true that there is a difference between the wind close to

21 the ground and the winds at higher altitudes?

22 A. Yes, that is correct. There are examples when wind close to the

23 earth can blow in a different direction than the one blowing at an

24 altitude of two kilometres. The only way to establish that is by using

25 balloons or meteorological stations that can easily measure these by using

Page 6326

1 a probe.

2 Q. Do you know anything about whether in this region that we're

3 discussing now there were conditions in place to measure winds at higher

4 altitudes by using meteorological probes during the fire opened from

5 mortars?

6 A. Frankly speaking, I don't know if there was one nearby, whether

7 there was any meteorological station nearby preparing daily reports.

8 Q. Does that mean that there could have been substantial error

9 because it was impossible to measure wind at higher altitudes?

10 A. Yes, it is possible, but initial elements can be determined with a

11 high margin of error. However, this error is corrected.

12 Q. In your experience, is bura a constant wind or is it characterised

13 by strong gusts of wind?

14 A. Bura is not a constantly blowing wind. It comes in gusts. It

15 could stop altogether and then suddenly start blowing again.

16 Q. Do infantry units, company- or battalion-strong infantry units,

17 have at all any meteorological balloons, probes, or other instruments?

18 A. Infantry battalion, which means mortar units within it, has no

19 possibility to set up a meteorological station. They don't have such

20 units that do meteorological reconnaissance for them.

21 Q. In your report, did you include any data about the strength of the

22 wind and the impact or the influence of the wind on dispersal of shells on

23 the 6th of December, 1991?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Can you tell us, if we look at this map which I hope is still

Page 6327

1 before you, Exhibit P132, can you please be so kind as to tell the

2 Honourable Chamber - and I don't think it will be difficult for you to do

3 so by looking at the map - to tell us the altitude above sea level of

4 motorised companies of the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Brigade. Can you

5 just give us an estimate for Strincjera, for example?

6 A. I think the altitude above sea level is between 300 and 400 metres

7 in the area between Srdj and Zarkovica.

8 Q. That would mean that Strincjera is at about 412 metres.

9 A. I think so, although it is relatively difficult to determine this

10 precisely on such a small-scale map. We know that at 300 metres is

11 Zarkovica, that Srdj is at 500 metres, although Bosanka is a little bit

12 lower at some 250 metres, then it rises again towards Srdj.

13 Q. At any rate, that means that these positions, if there had been

14 any positions at all of mortars in that area -- region, were at the

15 altitudes between 300 or 400 or a little bit over 400 metres?

16 A. Between 300 and 400 metres.

17 Q. Could you please look at the position of the battalion fire group

18 at Uskoplje and tell us, please, your estimate of the altitude above sea

19 level where this firing group was.

20 A. If I can see well, it's 597 metres, and the battery and firing

21 group is a little bit lower, I think at about 500 metres. This is just an

22 approximation.

23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave and your

24 approval, I would suggest that we adjourn for today.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning

Page 6328

1 at 9.00.

2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

3 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 12th day of May,

4 2004, at 9.00 a.m.