12.07.2015 Views

Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

38707Main Staff and communications centre. 4303 Rajčić told <strong>Gotovina</strong> that 130-millim<strong>et</strong>reguns and 122-millim<strong>et</strong>re launchers were not capable of being fired at the SVK MainStaff and the communications centre and hitting only those targ<strong>et</strong>s, without causingdamage to the surrounding area. 4304 <strong>Gotovina</strong> told Rajčić to an<strong>al</strong>yse the possiblecollater<strong>al</strong> damage of projectiles missing these targ<strong>et</strong>s, as the SVK Main staff was ahighly interesting targ<strong>et</strong> in combat. 43051184. Rajčić an<strong>al</strong>yzed the possible collater<strong>al</strong> damage of firing at targ<strong>et</strong>s in Knin andconcluded that the harm to citizens and materi<strong>al</strong> damage to surrounding buildings wouldbe “to a lesser extent”. 4306 In coming to this conclusion, Rajčić considered the use ofcontact-fuse shells, which cannot pierce concr<strong>et</strong>e buildings, as well as the characteristicsof the targ<strong>et</strong>s, their area, their surface area, the surrounding buildings, and the qu<strong>al</strong>ity ofconstruction. 4307 He <strong>al</strong>so considered the intelligence information that there had beensubstanti<strong>al</strong> emigration of civilians from Knin and that there was a curfew in place inKnin, which affected the expected number of civilians on the stre<strong>et</strong>s and in buildings at5 a.m. 4308 According to Rajčić, when using artillery against military objectives in urbanareas, the choice of the time of day was an important consideration in minimizingcollater<strong>al</strong> damage to civilians, when deciding the weapon, type of fire and amount ofammunition. 4309 According to Rajčić, the selection and targ<strong>et</strong>ing within the tactic<strong>al</strong> andoperation<strong>al</strong> deployment of the enemy was preceded by a thorough intelligenceassessment of the terrain, deployment and enemy strength, and weather conditions. 4310Rajčić made the fin<strong>al</strong> selection of military objectives by considering both militarynecessity and possible collater<strong>al</strong> damage and civilian casu<strong>al</strong>ties. 4311 The choice ofweapon to be fired at a certain targ<strong>et</strong> was d<strong>et</strong>ermined by range and by which weaponwould cause the least collater<strong>al</strong> damage while still achieving the military advantage. 43124303 Marko Rajčić, T. 16282-16824.4304 Marko Rajčić, T. 16284.4305 Marko Rajčić, T. 16285.4306 Marko Rajčić, T. 16285.4307 Marko Rajčić, T. 16285-16286.4308 Marko Rajčić, T. 16826.4309 D1425 (Marko Rajčić, witness statement, 13 February 2009), para. 28.4310 P2339 (Reconstruction of artillery activities of the 4th and 7th Guards Brigade from 4 to 9 August1995, by Marko Rajčić, 28 November 2008), p. 20.4311 D1425 (Marko Rajčić, witness statement, 13 February 2009), para. 19.4312 D1425 (Marko Rajčić, witness statement, 13 February 2009), para. 27.608Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!