Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
One of the many controversies that survived the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina concerns the responsibility for several of the most deadly artillery attacks against civilians during the three-year siege of Sarajevo. Although indiscriminate artillery fire accounted for a small fraction of the total civilian deaths during the war, graphic video footage of the mass slaughter exercised a disproportionate effect on world public opinion and, therefore, on Western policymakers who felt constrained to “do something.” On at least three occasions, individual artillery explosions in the Bosnian capital prompted immediate international intervention that substantially determined the course and resolution of the conflict. The persistence of controversy is informed by a combination of factors, including the substantial consequences of the Western response, the inconclusiveness of some of the forensic data, and the conflicting statements of civilian survivors, journalists, spokesmen for the belligerents, and U.N. officials—all of whom have been accused of some degree of bias by one side or another. Nearly a decade later, testimony and forensic evidence presented at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has shed new light on these incidents, presenting a more comprehensive and authoritative historical baseline account of the “mortar massacres,” much as it has for a plethora of criminal acts committed by all sides during the wars of Yugoslav succession. The Tribunal recently released documentation detailing some of the mortar attacks that occurred in the city of Sarajevo, including forensic reports compiled by the U.N. Protection Force (UNPROFOR) which had not been previously made public. The bulk of this information is contained in the Tribunal Judgment and corresponding Dissenting Opinion of the former commander of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps (SRK), Major General Stanislav Galić. Although the reliability of judicial testimony and other evidence is invariably limited by the abilities and resources of both the prosecution and defense, the trial transcript has cleared away at least some of the fog of war, making it somewhat less difficult to apportion responsibility for the disputed attacks. This article integrates the Galić transcript with earlier, wartime U.N. documentation, press releases, and media reports, supplemented by interviews conducted by the authors with military experts familiar with the characteristics of the weaponry employed by the besiegers. It also endeavors to place the most notorious incidents in the broader context presented by the multiplicity of artillery attacks that took place in urban areas across Bosnia between 1992 and 1995.
1. Case No. IT-98-29-T, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion.” In Trial Chamber I, Before: Judge Alphons Orie, Judge Amin El Mahdi, Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia. Released 5 December 2003.Google Scholar
2. Case No. IT-98-29-T, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia.” In Trial Chamber I, Before: Judge Alphons Orie, Judge Amin El Mahdi, Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia. Released 5 December 2003.Google Scholar
3. Citation from a JNA manual?Google Scholar
4. Bihać, Goražde, Sarajevo, Srebrenica, Tuzla, Žepa.Google Scholar
5. P2261 (U.N. report) p. 43.Google Scholar
6. United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 819 (1993) designated the city of Srebrenica and its surrounding area as a Safe Area. UNSCR 824 designated Žepa, Goražde, and Bihać and their surroundings as Safe Areas.Google Scholar
7. These attacks were only disputed long after the incident by General Galić's defense team as reported in the Judgment and Opinion and Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of the ICTY Trial Chamber.Google Scholar
8. Dobrinja is in southwest Sarajevo adjacent to the international airport and close to the line of control at the time.Google Scholar
9. Eyewitnesses at the ICTY testified that between 11 and 16 people were killed because of the explosions. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 376. The post-attack Canadian UNPROFOR investigation determined that the attack killed 13 people and injured 133. William J. Fenrick, Annex VI.A, “Incident Study Regarding Mortar Shelling, Dobrinja, Sarajevo on 1 June 1993.” UNSC. 28 December 1994.Google Scholar
10. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 376. “81 mm” refers to the diameter of the mortar shell and barrel. This paper discusses 82- and 120-mm mortar shells, and 130-mm artillery shells. For additional information, see Figures 2 and 3.Google Scholar
11. Ibid., paragraph 377.Google Scholar
12. The post-attack analysis states that “the shells came from the Serbian side, approximately 300 meters south of the Lukavica Barracks.” See Figure 1 for the general location of the Lukavica Barracks relative to the Dobrinja district. William J. Fenrick, Annex VI.A, “Incident Study Regarding Mortar Shelling, Dobrinja, Sarajevo on 1 June 1993.” UNSC, 28 December 1994.Google Scholar
13. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 382.Google Scholar
14. Ibid., paragraph 388.Google Scholar
15. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia,” paragraph 65.Google Scholar
16. The UNPROFOR incident investigator stated, “the mortar shell killed 11 persons and wounded 13 others.” ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 389.Google Scholar
17. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 391.Google Scholar
18. Ibid., paragraph 388–389.Google Scholar
19. Ibid., paragraph 397.Google Scholar
20. The defense conclusion “that the direction of fire of the shell was most probably from an ‘East-Southwest direction’ was based on inverted pictures.” ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 393.Google Scholar
21. ICTY, “‘Prosecutor v. Stanislav Gali’, Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia,” paragraph 70.Google Scholar
22. “Six children had been killed by the explosions and another three children and one adult had been seriously injured.” ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 333.Google Scholar
23. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 335.Google Scholar
24. “The Trial Chamber finds that Mirza Sabljica employed the correct methodology to determine the direction from which the shells had landed.” ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 341.Google Scholar
25. Sabljica testified “that all three shells originated in Nedarići, in the vicinity of the Institute for the Blind,” an area occupied by the SRK forces. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 335.Google Scholar
26. Ibid., paragraph 345.Google Scholar
27. “The Trial Chamber reiterates that a mere hypothesis is not a basis for reasonable doubt. Some fact or allegation must be relied on to turn a mere possibility into a reasonable one. Moreover, concerning the alleged possibility that the ARBiH mistakenly hit Alipašino Polje while aiming at Nedarići, for which there is not the slightest factual basis, the fact that the two locations are about a kilometre apart, would necessarily exclude such allegation.” ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 342.Google Scholar
28. Ibid., note 1351.Google Scholar
29. “The investigation team into the incident was headed by Zdenko Eterović, a judge and investigative magistrate.” ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 403.Google Scholar
30. Ibid.Google Scholar
31. Ibid., paragraph 404.Google Scholar
32. Ibid., paragraph 406.Google Scholar
33. The attack “was, at the very least, indiscriminate as to its target (which nevertheless was primarily if not entirely a residential neighborhood), and was carried out recklessly, resulting in civilian casualties.” Ibid., paragraph 410.Google Scholar
34. Chuck Sudetic, Blood and Vengeance: One Family's Story of the War in Bosnia (New York: Penguin Books, 1998), pp. 232–234; Steven L. Burg and Paul S. Shoup, The War in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Ethnic Conflict and International Intervention (Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, 1999), pp. 147–150.Google Scholar
35. Central Intelligence Agency, Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990–1995, Vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Office of Russian and European Analysis, 2002), p. 385.Google Scholar
36. Ibid., p. 387.Google Scholar
37. Alexander G. Higgens, “Tuzla, First Anniversary,” Associated Press World Stream, International News, 25 May 1996.Google Scholar
38. Shoup and Burg, War in Bosnia-Herzegovina, pp. 162, 165; Sudetic, Blood and Vengeance, p. 248; Charles G. Boyd, “Making Peace with the Guilty: the Truth about Bosnia, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 74, 1995, pp. 22–38.Google Scholar
39. Tom Gjelten, Professionalism in War Reporting: A Correspondent's View (Washington, DC: Carnegie Corporation of New York, June 1998), < http://www.wilsoncenter.org/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/gj/gjfr.htm >..>Google Scholar
40. Leonard Doyle, “Muslims Slaughter Their Own People,” The Independent , 22 August 1992, p. 1.Google Scholar
41. Mackenzie tells Gjelten, “It will take other investigations, other than somebody who saw it from afar or only saw bits and pieces of the evidence, to come to a conclusive finding.” Tom Gjelten, “Blaming the Victim,” New Republic , 20 December 1993, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar
42. Ibid.Google Scholar
43. Gjelten, Professionalism in War Reporting , p. 17.Google Scholar
44. Keith Doubt, Sociology after Bosnia and Kosovo: Recovering Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
45. Letter presented as evidence item D 138.1. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 440.Google Scholar
46. Bosnian Muslim representation refused to comply with this request. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 440.Google Scholar
47. Central Intelligence Agency, Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 7990–1995, Vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Office of Russian and European Analysis, 2002), pp. 229–230.Google Scholar
48. The origin of incoming fire is calculated in degrees, beginning with true North (0°) and proceeding clockwise in a 360-degree arc, with East 90°, South 180°, and West 270°.Google Scholar
49. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 445–447.Google Scholar
50. This team comprised Major Sahaisar Khan, Commandant John Hamill, and Captain Jose Grande.Google Scholar
51. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 446–449.Google Scholar
52. P2261 (U.N. report).Google Scholar
53. With an absolute minimal angle of 49.15 degrees due to structures blocking lower flight paths.Google Scholar
54. P2261 (U.N. report) p. 4. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galič, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 449 and note 1628.Google Scholar
55. David Binder, “Anatomy of a Massacre,” Foreign Policy, Vol. 97, 1994–1995, pp. 70–78.Google Scholar
56. Interview with British UNPROFOR Captain Ken Lindsay.Google Scholar
57. Mark Danner, “Bosnia: the Turning Point,” New York Review of Books , 5 February 1998, p. 34–41.Google Scholar
58. Binder, “Anatomy of a Massacre,” pp. 77–78.Google Scholar
59. In addition, the ongoing Slobodan Milosevic Hague trial is re-examining this incident.Google Scholar
60. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” note 1560.Google Scholar
61. Principal local investigators: Mirza Sabljica, and Berko Zečević had investigated prior mortar incidents in Sarajevo. At the time Hamdija Čavčić, was “a police investigator in the Department for Criminal and Technical Investigations in Sarajevo” (ICTY, paragraph 391). ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 441.Google Scholar
62. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 443.Google Scholar
63. Ibid., paragraph 444.Google Scholar
64. Reported by multiple sources to be between 200 and 250 mmGoogle Scholar
65. The fact that the tailfin was present in the crater proves that the shell was moving at a velocity greater than 150 meters per second. See Figure 3.Google Scholar
66. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 481.Google Scholar
67. Ibid., paragraph 459.Google Scholar
68. Ibid., paragraph 454–460.Google Scholar
69. Ibid., paragraph 453.Google Scholar
70. Ibid., paragraph 449.Google Scholar
71. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia,” paragraph 73.Google Scholar
72. Case No. IT-98-29-T. “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia.” In Trial Chamber I, Before: Judge Alphons Orie, Judge Amin El Mahdi, Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia. Released 5 December 2003. Paragraphs 92, 94, 98–101, 488, 493, 495–496.Google Scholar
73. The U.S. Army field manual for artillery states, “It is possible to do the following: verify as confined locations, suspected locations that have been obtained by other means. Confirm the presence of enemy artillery and obtain an approximate direction to it. Detect the presence of new types of enemy weapons, new calibers, or new ammunition manufacturing methods.” This manual ignores the possibility of determining range estimates through post-impact analysis. Although it does state, “often, tail fins are found in the fuze tunnel of the crater,” it does not elaborate on a method for extrapolating range from the tailfin. U.S. Military Field Manual FM 6-50, Appendix J “Crater Analysis and Reporting,” Section J–4.Google Scholar
74. Interview with Bill Stuebner, former advisor to the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and a senior staff member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation, working in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 12 December 2003. See Figure 3.Google Scholar
75. Chuck Sudetic, “Bosnia Army Said to Shell Its Own Area,” New York Times , 11 November 1994, p. 10.Google Scholar
76. Mike O'Connor, “Investigation Concludes Bosnian Government Snipers Shot at Civilians,” New York Times , 1 August 1995, p. 6.Google Scholar
77. Central Intelligence Agency, Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990–1995, Vol. 1 (Washington: Office of Russian and European Analysis, 2002), pp. 377–378.Google Scholar
78. The forensic report has never been released, even at the Galić trial. According to Burg and Shoup, who interviewed a source close to the investigation, the shell was one of five salvoes, the other four had definitely originated from VRS positions, but the origin of the all-important fifth shell that inflicted the casualties could not be ascertained, probably because it had been deflected just before impact. War in Bosnia-Herzegivina , p. 168.Google Scholar
79. Andrei Naryshkin, “Russian Commander Question UN Probe into Sarajevo Attack,” Tass, 3 September 1995.Google Scholar
80. Central Intelligence Agency, Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990–1995, Vol. 1 (Washington: Office of Russian and European Analysis, 2002), p. 417.Google Scholar
81. Cees Wiebes, Intelligence and the War in Bosnia, 1992–1995 (Munich, Hamburg, Berlin, Vienna and London: Lit Verlag, 2003), p. 68; 5 October 2004 interview with the author.Google Scholar
82. ICTY, “Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Judgment and Opinion,” paragraph 342.Google Scholar
83. Interview with UNPROFOR Captain Ken Lindsay, who employed parallel logic in giving responsibility for the 5 February 1994 Markale salvo, which he recounted as one of an estimated 600 that fell on Sarajevo that day.Google Scholar
