Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4653

1 Monday, 29 October 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, everybody.

6 Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good afternoon, Your Honours. This

8 is case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

10 Could we have appearances for today, starting with the

11 Prosecution.

12 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honours, Laurie Sartorio and Kyle Wood for the

13 Prosecution. We're assisted by our case manager, Alma Imamovic.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

15 And for the Defence.

16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good

17 afternoon to my colleagues, the Prosecution. Vasvija Vidovic and Nicholas

18 Robson for the Defence of General Rasim Delic, and appearing with us is

19 the legal assistant, Lana Deljkic.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

21 I've been told we should hold court with the witness for some time

22 because, Ms. Sartorio, you have something to say?

23 MS. SARTORIO: I do, Your Honour.

24 As you know, this witness is coming. She is a forensic

25 pathologist who examined the bodies that were exhumed that were the

Page 4654

1 subject of a previous witness's testimony.

2 More than 30 days ago, we filed a motion -- a notice to present

3 this expert witness, and attached to that motion was what we thought was

4 the full report of the expert as well as her statement. They were

5 attachment A and B to our notice of expert testimony.

6 We discovered recently, in fact last Friday, that one -- half of

7 her report was not attached, and the reason is half of her report was in a

8 different ERN range. Somehow it got split up, but it was discovered, and

9 I tried to give Defence counsel a copy over the weekend, but somehow there

10 was a miscommunication between security. I left it with them and they

11 never got it.

12 However, having said that, the second half of the report -- the

13 first half of the report discusses bodies 1 through 7. The second half of

14 the report discusses body number 8 and skulls A through H. Defence

15 counsel has had this second half of the report disclosed to them quite

16 some time ago. The bodies 8 and skulls A through H were discussed in the

17 statement of Dr. Silajdzic-Brkic, and there is mention of it in all of the

18 disclosure as well as the exhibit that is on the list for this doctor.

19 What was simply missing was the final -- the final report -- her report

20 that was written on body number 8 and skulls A through H.

21 Some of the -- all but -- only two of the skulls are actually

22 relevant to our crime base, so in fact it's not -- none of this is a

23 surprise to the Defence, and at this point the Prosecution seeks to

24 supplement the exhibit list with the second half of the doctor's report,

25 as well as being able to submit it in evidence today through the doctor.

Page 4655

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Sartorio.

2 Madam Vidovic, anything to say, or Mr. Robson?

3 MR. ROBSON: Good afternoon, Your Honours.

4 The position is that the Prosecution filed its motion to -- and

5 submitted the expert report on the 25th of September. The motion was

6 submitted pursuant to Rule 94 ter, which concerns experts.

7 Moreover, on the 1st of October, the Prosecution filed an addendum

8 to that motion, and as part of that addendum, the Prosecution provided an

9 English translation of the expert report.

10 Now, the expert report only deals with bodies number 1 through to

11 number 7. Body number 8 isn't there, and as are -- and the skulls are

12 also not mentioned.

13 However, it's the Defence's submission that that was the expert

14 report that the Prosecution chose to file, and under Rule 94 ter the

15 Prosecution were obliged to file the full report and/or statement. That's

16 what the Rule says. And the Defence had a period of time, 30 days, in

17 order to respond. When the Defence responded, we responded on the basis

18 of the document that was filed with the Court.

19 Now, this witness was due to testify on Friday, and the Court is

20 aware of the reasons why the witness did not proceed to testify that day.

21 And on Friday, as far as the Defence were concerned and as, it seems, as

22 far as the Prosecution was also aware, that witness would have testified

23 on the basis of the expert report that was filed back in September.

24 Now, having adjourned the case early on Friday, it seems that the

25 Prosecution has now discovered that there is a second part to this

Page 4656

1 report. The Prosecution contacted the Defence over the weekend to say

2 that there was this further part which had not been filed. The Defence

3 was informed that a copy of that document would be left with -- in the

4 locker and then told it would be with the Security over the weekend. We

5 attempted to obtain that document. It wasn't in the locker, and no

6 security officer had a copy of it that they could give to us.

7 Now, today we were able to obtain a copy of the further part of

8 the report in the B/C/S language during the course of the morning.

9 However, at 20 past 2.00, I've just received a copy of that second part in

10 English, and the situation is I simply don't know what that report says,

11 the second part.

12 So there we have it, Your Honour. So it seems that we have a

13 failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 94 ter, and I'm

14 aware of what the doctor may say about body number 8 and the skulls, from

15 what she says in her statement, but I certainly don't know what she says

16 in her expert report. It's a rather unsatisfactory situation.

17 Your Honours, I don't know how far we can really proceed with

18 this, but I'm not really happy for the witness to testify upon the

19 contents of the second report, the further report.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: You know, when this motion was filed on the 25th of

21 September, and I'm aware that the Chamber became aware of the fact that it

22 was already short notice, and I don't know whether we did discuss it in

23 court or not -- we did. Mr. Tillman confirms, because I remember we

24 discussed it. The Defence is entitled to 30 days to respond, and if you

25 give notice on the 25th of September for a witness to testify on the 25th

Page 4657

1 of October, you're already out of time. We raised this then, because the

2 Defence was entitled, up until the 25th of October, to respond to that

3 motion like they have responded.

4 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, Your Honour. They did respond earlier, which

5 is why we put the witness back on the list. In other words, they didn't

6 use the full 30 days to respond.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Right. And so they were still accommodating you.

8 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, I understand.

9 And let me just, if I may, emphasise, though, that, first of all,

10 the document was disclosed, so the information was there. The information

11 was discussed in the statement of Dr. Brkic, which is also attached to our

12 notice. And the translation was disclosed on the 21st of August of 2007

13 of that additional -- that second half of the report.

14 And furthermore, with the last witness, both the Prosecution and

15 the Defence discussed the ICMP DNA reports where -- exhibit 649 and 645

16 where they include in the DNA reports the DNA analysis of body 1/8 and of

17 a couple of the skulls, so the DNA reports of those two items have been

18 submitted in evidence.

19 So the report, for the purpose of completeness -- and also under

20 94 bis it says "the full statement and/or report of any expert witness

21 shall be disclosed," and we did disclose the full statement, and the

22 second half of the report was omitted not intentionally. But the witness

23 can testify also about what she did, the procedure she followed, without

24 the report, but we're just -- we're trying to ensure that the record is

25 complete, and the witness is here, and there doesn't appear to be, in our

Page 4658

1 opinion, any prejudice to the accused, since they had the information and

2 the information is already included in exhibits that have been admitted in

3 evidence and was included in her statement.

4 Thank you.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: At least speaking for myself, I know I've got the

6 first part of the report, too, I haven't got the second part as we speak,

7 it was one of the questions I was going to raise with the witness as to

8 where is the eighth body and where are the skulls, but I don't know how

9 long this second portion is. Is it something, Mr. Robson, that the

10 witness couldn't sort of just read in B/C/S in court and you could -- it

11 could be translated?

12 MS. SARTORIO: We have the English translation, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand.

14 MS. SARTORIO: Sorry.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: How long is it?

16 MS. SARTORIO: It's eight pages, Your Honour -- 30 -- pages 7331

17 to 7338 of the ERN range.

18 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, yes, it's the whole report, the entire

19 report now, 16 pages of which seven deals with the further part which

20 hasn't previously been disclosed as part of the expert report.

21 And if I might just say so, Your Honour, just to respond to

22 something else that my learned friend mentioned a moment ago, it is right

23 to say, now that we've been able to check the records, that the English

24 translation was disclosed earlier this year, but it wasn't mentioned as

25 being part -- as being a "PT," i.e., an exhibit which the Prosecution was

Page 4659

1 intending to use within this case, and the information that came with this

2 disclosure relating to this additional part of the expert report states:

3 "Documentation relating to exhumation of the Kamenica area,

4 Zavidovici Municipality, on 26th June 2006, received from the Cantonal

5 Prosecutor's Office in Zenica exhumed corpses ..." and then there are some

6 names.

7 So there's nothing in the information that was supplied to suggest

8 that this was part of Dr. Sabiha Brkic-Silajdzic's expert report. So in

9 the absence of something to say it's a "PT," in the absence of something

10 to say this is connected to the expert's report, we didn't really -- it

11 simply wasn't brought to our attention, in our submission.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. Madam -- you see, I work more with you than

14 I work with Madam Sartorio. Every time I want to say "Madam Sartorio," I

15 say "Madam Vidovic."

16 Madam Sartorio, I'm afraid you have to lead the evidence on the

17 first seven bodies. If you want to lead her on the eighth body and the

18 heads, you can to do so at a later stage. You'll have to reschedule her.

19 We feel that in fairness to the Defence, you just can't lead her

20 on the second part of the report.

21 MS. SARTORIO: Well, it's rather awkward to start leading her on

22 part of her testimony and then have her cross-examined, and then we're

23 going to ask to bring her back for the second part of the testimony; is --

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want them to postpone?

25 MS. SARTORIO: Well, rather than -- I think that might be the best

Page 4660

1 thing, under the circumstances. We'll give them the 30 days' notice,

2 postpone her to the end of the month, if that's what's required.

3 We can't afford not to have this in --

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fine, it's up to you. If you want to postpone,

5 then we can postpone, and you file that report properly and give them

6 proper notice. That's fine, if that's what you want to do.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam Sartorio, how long would your

8 examination-in-chief be?

9 MS. SARTORIO: I was going to stay within my time allotted today,

10 which I believe was an hour and a half. I was going to try to shorten it.

11 I think what the doctor will testify to is quite straightforward,

12 and it's a matter of getting in the records through her and her talking

13 about her examination. So --

14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Because rather than completely losing her today,

15 we could at least start and then you could finish your

16 examination-in-chief, and then we could postpone and call her back.

17 MS. SARTORIO: How about we suspend my examination-in-chief,

18 because if we say we have no further questions, we're ending it at that

19 point. So --

20 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, you'll be able to continue when we then get

21 the second part and call her back.

22 MS. SARTORIO: That would be fine, Your Honour. I'm prepared to

23 do that.

24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Rather than just losing the time now.

25 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you. I'd be prepared to do that, thank you.

Page 4661

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

2 Then before you call her, there's just a small other housekeeping

3 matter.

4 The Chamber has sort of been notified of the availability of

5 sessions in the morning this week, that we could sit, if we would like, in

6 the morning rather than in the afternoon, and we thought that tomorrow and

7 Thursday we could indeed take advantage of sitting in the morning, if

8 everybody is agreeable.

9 Is that okay?

10 MS. SARTORIO: I believe that's fine, Your Honour, with the

11 Prosecution.

12 The next witness is not going to be ready to start until tomorrow,

13 however. He's still in proofing.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay, that's fine. So we can call this one, and as

15 soon as we finish with this housekeeping matter.

16 Last week, when we talked about accommodating this witness, we did

17 not finally say whether we are sitting or not sitting on Friday. So we

18 are not sitting on Friday, okay, in line with the order that we gave of

19 sitting four days.

20 Okay, thank you so much. You may call the witness.

21 MS. SARTORIO: The Prosecution calls the doctor. Thank you.

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: It looks like we have lost the witness, so let's

24 take a short adjournment. We'll be called once she's been found.

25 Court adjourned.

Page 4662

1 --- Recess taken at 2.40 p.m.

2 [The witness entered court]

3 --- On resuming at 2.45 p.m.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, ma'am. Would you please stand up.

5 Good afternoon, ma'am. Madam, please make the declaration.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

7 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may please be seated now.

11 Yes, Madam Sartorio.

12 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Examination by Ms. Sartorio:

14 Q. Madam, would you please -- would you please state your full name.

15 A. My name is Sabiha Silajdzic-Brkic.

16 Q. And what is your date of birth?

17 A. 1963.

18 Q. And in what municipality and country do you currently reside?

19 A. I reside in Visoko, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

20 Q. And what is your current occupation?

21 A. At present, I am a forensic medicine expert, and I do forensic

22 work, autopsies. I have worked on exhumations, and a few days ago I

23 completed my specialisation in cytology, so my duties have been expanded

24 in the hospital and I'm now in the oncology ward.

25 Q. And could you please tell the Judges about your education, and

Page 4663

1 particularly in the field of forensic pathology?

2 A. I graduated from the Faculty of Medicine in Sarajevo, specialising

3 in forensic medicine in Ljubljana, that is, I went to Ljubljana to

4 specialise, and after that I continued working and I completed seminars

5 and courses that were organised in our country mostly by foreign experts.

6 There was a DNA laboratory extraction course. I don't deal with that

7 anymore. Then I undertook anthropological courses that we needed when

8 working in exhumation.

9 Q. And can you tell us when you graduated from the Faculty of

10 Medicine in Sarajevo?

11 A. In 1990.

12 Q. And since 1990, have you been involved in exhumations and/or the

13 examination of bodies recovered during exhumations?

14 A. I did exhumation first between 1990 and 1995, when I worked at the

15 War Hospital in Tesanj, and I worked in triage, the triage of wounded

16 persons, and that was the first time that I encountered injuries of that

17 type.

18 In 1995, I started my specialisation course, which I completed in

19 1999, which means that for eight years I had been working independently,

20 and for four years I dealt with exhumations, that is to say, from 1995.

21 Q. And can you tell us approximately how many exhumations you have

22 dealt with?

23 A. I don't know the exact figure because I never liked adding up the

24 numbers, because every exhumation is independent and separate, so -- but,

25 anyway, during my work, I have worked with over 1.000 bodies. I worked on

Page 4664

1 individual cases, bodies on the surface. I dealt with mass graves and

2 secondary graves, actually, primary graves and secondary graves as well.

3 Q. And has your work been primarily focused in the former Yugoslavia?

4 A. How do you mean?

5 Q. Have your exhumations been -- have they taken place in the former

6 Yugoslavia or other countries, for instance?

7 A. No, only on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the canton I

8 live in, the Central Bosnian Canton of Travnik and from time to time for

9 the Sarajevo Canton as well, but my first exhumations were conducted

10 during my specialisation course in 1995, when I was member of the first

11 team that was ever established, the expert team of forensic experts in

12 Tuzla, and that's when I first had to deal with bodies that were from

13 Srebrenica.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just get clarification, ma'am. Do you deal

15 with exhumations or do you deal with autopsies?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The procedure in our country is as

17 follows: A physician dealing with autopsies is usually present on

18 exhumation sites, which means that my work begins with exhumation. I am

19 present during the exhumation process, when the bodies are dug up. I

20 follow the body and then complete the process with an autopsy.

21 In exceptional cases, if you cannot assist an exhumation, which

22 has been prevalent of late, or if anthropologists from the ICMP are

23 present who can follow the body, then it's not compulsory for a physician

24 to be on the spot, on the terrain, at all times.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you present when the bodies you're about to

Page 4665

1 testify about were exhumed?


3 JUDGE MOLOTO: So in this case, you're going to testify about

4 autopsies, not exhumation?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just wanted to get that clarification.


8 Q. Now, can you tell us, over the course of the last 12 years

9 approximately how many autopsies that you have been involved in?

10 A. Well, as I said with the bodies, certainly over 1.000. I can't

11 give you an exact figure.

12 Q. Now, I'd like you now to talk to -- to explain to the Chamber what

13 is involved when you are asked to participate in an autopsy, and

14 particularly one where you did not attend the exhumation site. What is

15 the first course of action that takes place?

16 A. This is a rare case where I did not attend the exhumation process

17 itself. Usually, I did. But when I am not present at the exhumation,

18 then my assistant is on site, and he's been working for me -- with me for

19 many years, and I have trained him how a body should be followed and how

20 bodies must be exhumed, because when you discover a body in a grave, my

21 assistant comes up to the body, cleans it, and he takes out the body, not

22 the workers digging up the actual area.

23 So in this case, I continued working on the bodies once they

24 arrived in Visoko. When the bodies were in Visoko, we received

25 information -- or rather I received information that I should not touch

Page 4666

1 the bodies until representatives of both committees for missing persons

2 were present, our federal commission and the commission of Republika

3 Srpska.

4 Q. Let me just stop you there. When the Judge just asked you, "Are

5 you present when the bodies you're about to testify about were exhumed,"

6 you answered no and --

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].

8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I saw that.

10 MS. SARTORIO: I'm confused now and I just want to make sure.

11 Q. So are you or are you not generally present during the actual

12 exhumation?

13 A. Generally, yes. Maybe just because of the last two or three -- or

14 rather for the last two or three exhumations, when I was doing additional

15 training, I was not, but otherwise I followed the whole procedure from Day

16 1 to the end.

17 Q. Okay. Now, I would like to direct your attention to June of 2006,

18 and -- well, before I do that, sorry, excuse me, one more question. Have

19 you ever testified in court in relation to your work?

20 A. Yes, I have, in our courts, the Cantonal Court in Travnik, and

21 also in one case I gave a statement at the State Prosecutor's Office in

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23 Q. And on what topics would you -- have you testified on in relation

24 to your work; your particular examinations and autopsies of bodies? And

25 if so, can you be particular about what it is you testified?

Page 4667

1 A. Well, specifically, they were injuries that were found on the

2 bodily remains of the persons and to determine what body it was, whether

3 the bodies were identified. In these cases, the two bodies were

4 identified, and on the basis of my examination of the body, I made my

5 findings, whether there were fractures or injuries during transport,

6 perhaps, or because the body had been buried underground for a long time

7 or maybe above ground, depending on where the body was lying.

8 Q. And have you also testified, in relation to your work, about cause

9 or manner of death of when -- of the remains, the mortal remains?

10 A. In my country, it's difficult to explain to people that when I

11 have a skeleton, I cannot determine with 100 per cent certainty the cause

12 of death. The word "autopsy," in my country, means "postmortem," and that

13 means an entire examination of the body, with the abdominal cavity, the

14 contents in the skull, and the general body, so I call this an

15 osteological examination, because if I only look at the bones, that is not

16 a complete autopsy, it is just an autopsy of the remains that have been

17 found and not the entire body. And so for that reason, if I might be

18 allowed to continue, you cannot give the cause of death, because I always

19 like to give the example of a man with a fractured rib, you don't die of a

20 fractured rib, but I no longer have the lungs to examine so I cannot say

21 what affect that fractured rib had on the lungs and determine the actual

22 cause of death.

23 Q. Okay. And for my purposes, as well as probably the Judges', maybe

24 they know, but "osteological examination," can you tell us what that

25 means?

Page 4668

1 A. Osteology is the science of bones. Therefore, an osteological

2 finding means a finding based on an examination of the bones.

3 Q. But I believe you just said that an autopsy in your country means

4 the entire examination of the body, including the abdominal cavity,

5 contents of the skull, et cetera, and then you said that you called that

6 an osteological examination, so that to me means more than bones.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Calls that autopsy, but when she's given the bones

8 only --

9 MS. SARTORIO: Osteological.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- the skeleton only, then she --

11 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- does an osteological examination.

13 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you for clarifying that, Your Honour.

14 Q. Okay. Now I would like to direct your attention to June of 2006,

15 and I would like to ask you if you participated, first of all, in an

16 exhumation? If so, where, and if not, did you participate in an

17 examination of bodies that had been exhumed?

18 A. In 2006, as far as I can remember, I know that I wasn't there in

19 June because I was doing additional training and I did not attend any

20 exhumations at that time.

21 Q. But did you examine some bodies that had been exhumed in June of

22 2006?

23 A. Yes, I examined the bodies. More specifically, the bodies that we

24 are talking about today. After that, I had certain individual bodies that

25 were subsequently found in other locations.

Page 4669

1 Q. Well, do you recall the -- do you recall the date of an exhumation

2 that is going to be the subject of your discussion today?

3 A. Usually, as part of my written findings, I indicated the date of

4 the order based on which I started the autopsy. The order was issued on

5 the 27th of June, 2006.

6 Q. Okay. And can you tell us -- and I'm going to show you a document

7 in a minute, but can you tell us if you know -- I think you just said you

8 weren't in the region. Was that the reason why you did not attend the

9 exhumation? You were doing additional training, is that why you didn't

10 attend the exhumation?

11 A. That's the reason, yes.

12 MS. SARTORIO: May the witness be shown document P02964, page 22

13 in English and 14 in B/C/S.

14 Q. Now, Doctor -- the first page of -- I would like to ask, looking

15 at the document in front of you, if you can identify what this document

16 is.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.

18 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I just would like to point out that the

19 documents don't correspond.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Apparently the documents do not correspond,

21 Madam Sartorio.

22 MS. SARTORIO: You're right. Just a second, Your Honour.

23 If we could go to page 22 in English. Is that 22? Okay.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio, you're saying, "Go to page 22," but

25 is this the correct document?

Page 4670

1 MS. SARTORIO: I believe the B/C/S document is the correct one,

2 not the English.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then you can't go to page 22 in the English because

4 then the English is not the correct one.

5 MS. SARTORIO: Right. Well, my page for this document was 22, so

6 I need the English translation of the document that is on the screen. My

7 case manager is -- it's an order of 27 June 2000 -- page 7? Twenty-seven.

8 MR. ROBSON: Twenty-seven.

9 MS. SARTORIO: Twenty-seven, please, thank you.

10 Now that corresponds.

11 Q. Can you tell us what this document is?

12 A. This is the document that I mentioned as the order of the Cantonal

13 Prosecutor's Office, dated the 27th of June, which assigns me as an expert

14 in the forensic examination of the bodies that were exhumed as per this

15 order.

16 Q. And in the first sentence, underneath the word "Order," can you

17 just tell us what that -- what that says?

18 A. That a forensic medical examination be carried out on eight bodies

19 recovered in the Kamenica area, 15 kilometres from Zavidovici, on the

20 banks of the River Gostovic on the 21st, 22nd and 23rd June. Do you want

21 me to read the whole document or do you want me just to summarise and tell

22 you what I am being asked to do?

23 Q. Well, no, the answer is, no, I don't want you to read that, and

24 thank you. But I just wanted to identify for the record where this

25 exhumation had taken place, and then you can tell us what this order

Page 4671

1 ordered you to do.

2 A. When I received a document of this kind, i.e., an order from the

3 prosecutor's office, that document contained the data of the bodies, i.e.,

4 when they were exhumed and where. I also received the prosecutor's

5 number, which is very important for me, because that is the number that

6 accompanies the body throughout the procedure. The number is also

7 attached to the samples. This is the number KTA-248/06.

8 The order also states, as you can see here, that I am asked to

9 carry out a forensic medical examination, that I will be asked to carry

10 out anthropologic and osteological and forensic procedure. The

11 anthropological part is the one I've already talked about.

12 In the course of my subsequent trainings, I learned about that.

13 Those are actually osteological examinations. You look at the bones to

14 see whether they are typical in any way, whether they have any special

15 features. For example, on the skeleton you may see whether he had a

16 protruding upper or lower jaw, he or she, that is.

17 Q. Okay, thank you. And --

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may ask just one little question, ma'am.

19 You just told us, ma'am, you did not attend the exhumation. This

20 order says you did. Are you able to explain the difference? The order

21 says that the examination be carried out by a forensic court expert,

22 Dr. Sabiha Brkic-Silajdzic from Visoko, who was present at the exhumation,

23 and you told us you were not there.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't see that in this document.

25 It says here that a forensic medical examination be carried out on eight

Page 4672

1 exhumed bodies or recovered bodies, which means that the bodies are

2 already there, not for me to go to the exhumation. When I am supposed to

3 attend the exhumation, the order says that I'm supposed to attend the

4 exhumation and follow that exhumation by the examination. That's how the

5 order reads if I'm asked to attend an exhumation.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that, ma'am. There may be a problem

7 with the translation. The English translation, which I am reading,

8 alleges that you attended the exhumation. I just want you to clarify that

9 in relation to what you told us, that you did not attend the exhumation in

10 this particular case. Is it a mistake in the translation?

11 Yes, Madam Vidovic.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may assist, maybe

13 you should ask the witness to read the second passage and you will see

14 that there is no mistake in translation.

15 The examination will be carried out by a forensic court expert who

16 was present, this is a mistake on the part of our prosecutor's office [as

17 interpreted].

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. That's all I wanted to

19 clear. Thank you.

20 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, we ask this document to be admitted in

21 evidence.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

23 please be given an exhibit number.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, Exhibit 653.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Sixty-five --

Page 4673

1 THE REGISTRAR: Five three.

2 MS. SARTORIO: And just for the record, this is still part of

3 PT2964. As you know, I'm just admitting certain pages at a time and it

4 will be given different exhibit numbers at that time.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, is it a "PT" or "PO"?

6 MS. SARTORIO: "PO," 2964, sorry, but it's -- each group of pages

7 out of that range of that pre-trial exhibit number will be a separate

8 exhibit, if that's acceptable to the Court.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay, you go ahead.

10 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.

11 Q. Now, after receiving that order --

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.

13 MR. ROBSON: Sorry to interrupt. Before it disappears from our

14 page, the answer the witness gave, where she confirms that the mistake was

15 on the part of the prosecutor's office, that has not actually been

16 specified in the transcript, so perhaps if that could be -- it appears as

17 though Madam Vidovic has given that answer. I'm sure it will be sorted

18 out.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, yes, it seems as if it's Madam Vidovic's

20 answer.

21 Madam Vidovic said, "Your Honour, if I may assist, maybe you

22 should ask the witness to read the second passage and you will see that

23 there is no mistake in translation." And then the witness read.

24 Sorry, Mr. Court Reporter, there's a mixture here. The sentence

25 starting at line 21, page 20, which says: "The examination will be

Page 4674

1 carried out by a forensic court expert who was present, this is a mistake

2 on the part of our prosecutor's office," those words are the witness's

3 words, not Madam Vidovic's words. If you can attend to that, please.

4 You may proceed, Madam Sartorio.


6 Q. Now, in terms of your involvement in this -- in the examination of

7 the bodies from this exhumation, was this the first document that you

8 received or was this the first formal document that you received with

9 regard to this task -- tasking?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you review any documents in preparation for the autopsy? In

12 other words, did you review any official reports that were written after

13 the exhumation?

14 A. No.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio, if you can clarify for the sake of

16 the Court Usher. This Exhibit 653, you said, is just this order, not the

17 entire pages of the document?

18 MS. SARTORIO: Well, the document, I believe, is two pages.


20 MS. SARTORIO: So, yes.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just the two pages?


23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

24 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. I'd like to ask the witness to be shown, of

25 the same P02964, page 7 of the B/C/S, page 13 of English.

Page 4675

1 Q. Now, Doctor, have you seen this document before?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Okay. Have you seen anything that reported a record of the

4 on-site investigation?

5 A. Based on my experience, i.e., on our work, I did not need this

6 because I always attended exhumation. In principle, whenever I work, a

7 record of the on-site investigation doesn't hold much importance for me.

8 What is important is the body itself.

9 When I receive a body, I have to examine it, regardless of the

10 circumstances and regardless of the on-site investigation record, which

11 might even divert my attention from the important things. I always insist

12 that on completing the examination of the body, first, without knowing

13 anything else, and in most cases I did not even peruse those records of

14 the on-site investigation.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: But in this case, you did not attend the

16 exhumation, ma'am. Didn't you then need this record, now that you did not

17 attend this particular exhumation?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not need this record, because

19 the bodies were already in the bags, they were all already in the morgue,

20 and everything else would have been superfluous.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, ma'am.

22 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you, Your Honours.

23 Q. Okay. So what is the first thing that you did with relation to

24 examining the bodies? Tell us where you went and what you were presented

25 with and by whom.

Page 4676

1 A. As far as these bodies are concerned, they were rather specific

2 with regard to the other bodies that I had worked on.

3 I received an order to carry out an examination of these bodies.

4 However, I had to wait first for both sides to be present, i.e., the

5 representatives of both commissions, the federal commission and the

6 Republika Srpska commission.

7 A doctor came from Banja Luka, Zeljko Karan, and when we were all

8 together, we took one bag after another, and the first thing we did was to

9 take a DNA sample in the presence of everybody. I believe that there is a

10 record of that somewhere. Usually this was done by the prosecutor's

11 office or the police who were present during this preliminary

12 examination. This was done in order to find a bone that would be adequate

13 for the DNA analysis.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio.


16 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't mean to interfere with your leading --

17 MS. SARTORIO: That's okay.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- but we have the expert witness's report. It

19 looks like you're taking her through her report again. Don't you want her

20 to confirm her report and whether she stands by it, and that's it?

21 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. I was just laying the foundation for what --

22 the procedures and how she came to write her report, that's all, but I can

23 move along quite more quickly.


25 MS. SARTORIO: And I'm there at this point. Okay.

Page 4677

1 Q. So are you in Visoko at this point, are you at a morgue, or where

2 are you in looking at these documents, and who's present, other than

3 Dr. Karan that you mentioned?

4 A. I've already told you that I and Dr. Karan together opened the

5 bags, and we were taking samples for the DNA. This is what we had been

6 requested to do by the Prosecutor's Office and by both commissions, and

7 there was also a demand for both sides to be present during that.

8 Q. Right, and that's my question. When you say "both commissions,"

9 was Mr. Goran Krcmar present?

10 A. Let me just explain one thing. When I do my job, I am probably

11 too focused on my part of the job, and as for the things that surround me,

12 I know that there are people who are in charge of that. I mostly focus on

13 my work and on the body.

14 As far as I can remember, and I can't be certain of that, he may

15 have been present.

16 Q. Okay, thank you. Now, you examined each -- each bag. Can you

17 tell us, did you write a report after conducting your examination?

18 A. I would just like to add one thing. I said that I was not sure

19 about Goran because he was not that important for my part of the work, but

20 I am sure about Dr. Zeljko Karan and crime technicians who took

21 photographs. So whatever was important for my part of the job, I paid

22 attention to that.

23 This was not a classical examination. We only opened one body

24 after the other. We took photos and we also took samples for the DNA

25 analysis. That's what we did at the time.

Page 4678

1 Q. And can you -- may the witness please be shown the same P02964,

2 page 26 in Bosnian and 55 in English.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do we do with page 13? You showed her page

4 13.

5 MS. SARTORIO: That -- withdraw it. I mean, we're not seek to

6 admit it. She did not see the document, Your Honour. We'll get it

7 through another witness. Thank you.

8 Q. Now, I'd like you to please go to the -- to the end of this

9 particular document, which is page 51 in English, I believe -- no, not

10 51. It's page 15 of the report, which if you look at the bottom --

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it page 15, ma'am, or page 55?

12 MS. SARTORIO: Well, in e-court it starts at page 55, and the

13 document starts -- at the bottom you'll see it's document page 1, and the

14 document ends at page 15, which would be 70, page 70 in English.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. And what is the date? I see it says "31st

16 July" and then "20". I beg your pardon, the page is gone now.

17 MS. SARTORIO: Now, could you scroll up to the top of the page,

18 please. Okay. Could you go to the previous page so the doctor can see

19 what number this is. And one more page in English. Okay. And could you

20 please scroll to that page. Thank you.

21 Q. Can you identify the cover page of this document, Doctor?

22 A. What I'm looking at, on the left side of the screen, was the title

23 page or the cover page of my findings, containing the data on the Cantonal

24 Prosecutor's Office, the number of the case, and which prosecutor ordered

25 that the examination be done.

Page 4679

1 Now I'm looking at the first part of my findings, and the bottom

2 of each page contains the same data, making a reference to the

3 prosecutor's office, the name of the prosecutor, and the number of the

4 case. Every page, therefore, bears the same data on the case and on the

5 prosecutor's office who ordered the examination to be done.

6 Q. Now I'd like you to tell us what this -- does this represent the

7 whole of your report or is this part of the report?

8 A. This is just one part, the end of one body and the beginning of

9 the other body.

10 Q. Can you tell us, have you reviewed your report in preparation for

11 your testimony today?

12 A. I did.

13 Q. And you stand by your findings and conclusions that are contained

14 in this report?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Can you tell the Chamber how many bodies or body remains that you

17 examined and determined were of -- how many bodies you determined there

18 were?

19 A. When the forensic examination was done, we ended up with eight

20 bodies, of which seven were without a skull. Body number 7 did have a

21 skull, and as for body number 8, we only found fragments of the skull

22 bones.

23 And now what did I describe in this part of the findings?

24 Separate from the body, there were seven skulls, each of them packed into

25 a separate bag.

Page 4680

1 Q. Now, do you have information about where the skulls were found in

2 relation to the other remains?

3 A. I asked my assistant, just my assistant and nobody else, where the

4 skulls were found and where the rest of the bodies were found. I am

5 only -- always interested in that in order to understand how the skulls

6 got separated from the body. He told me that the bodies were in one part

7 of the grave, and independent of that, in another part of the grave, there

8 were just the skulls.

9 Q. And can you tell us, in terms of your whole report, how you

10 numbered the so-called bodies or body remains? What was the numbering

11 system?

12 A. The numbering system had been in use for a number of years and it

13 had been accepted by the people involved in the DNA analysis and the

14 commissions, because it provides for the easiest monitoring of the body.

15 The markings "1/1", "1/2" and "1/3" indicates that it is one and the same

16 location, i.e., that the eight bodies were found in one location. That is

17 indicated by the number "1" in front of the numbers that mark the bodies.

18 In order to avoid any confusion, the skulls were marked with letters.

19 Q. And can you tell us the total number of bodies? In other words,

20 what was the highest number it went up to, "1/1" to "1/" what?

21 A. "1/8" was the final number for the body.

22 Q. And in terms of the skulls, can you recall the letters, the

23 sequence of letters, how many? The skulls were marked with letters, were

24 they not?

25 A. A, B, C, D, E, F, H, so from A to H.

Page 4681

1 Q. Thank you. Now, in terms of --

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, ma'am. The witness said, "A, B, C, D, E, F,

3 H." She jumped "G," and then she says, "From A to H." From A to H is

4 eight. A, B, C, D, E, F, H is seven, so there's some confusion here.


6 Q. Did you just hear what the Judge said, Doctor?

7 A. Yes. I appreciate your question. I, myself, asked, "What about

8 G," which was supposed to be there, but I suppose that on the ground they

9 got -- they mixed up the alphabet, and I for myself had to follow and keep

10 the markings that were given to the bodies on the ground.

11 Q. So were there seven or eight skulls found?

12 A. Seven skulls, because you won't find the "G" skull in my report.

13 MS. SARTORIO: Now I'd like the witness to be shown Exhibit 649

14 while we are -- and I'll ask a couple of questions.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you want to do with page 55 --

16 MS. SARTORIO: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honour. We would ask they be

17 admitted into evidence.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Page 55 is admitted in evidence. May it please be

19 given an exhibit number, page 55 of PO2964.

20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want page 55 or page 55 to 70?

22 MS. SARTORIO: Fifty-five to 70, please.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

24 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit 654.

25 MS. SARTORIO: Now, 649, please.

Page 4682

1 Q. Now, while that's coming up on the screen, Exhibit 649, I'll just

2 ask you: Was -- part of your examination included, I believe you said

3 earlier and it's also in your report, that you took DNA samples from the

4 bones. Could you briefly explain that process to the Chamber? Was every

5 bone tested or how -- what did you do?

6 A. In this case, the reverse was actually done. Every time -- the

7 rule is that the body is examined first to see what we have in the bag, in

8 the body-bag, what the skeletal remains are, and then to determine what

9 bones should be sent up for DNA analysis. In this case, samples were

10 taken first, samples of the bones that you usually use for samples.

11 And in the DNA samples, you might have noticed that there were

12 some markings, 17A and 18A.

13 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. And maybe this is a good time, Your Honours.

14 I hate to interrupt the witness, but to take the break and we can finish

15 with the DNA, and I think in 15 minutes I can finish her examination.

16 Thank you.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take a break and come back at 4.00.

18 Court adjourned.

19 --- Recess taken at 3.34 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 4.00 p.m.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Sartorio.

22 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 I'm asking that the witness be shown Exhibit 649. Okay.

24 This is the first page.

25 Q. Doctor, I'd like you to look at -- I'm just going to show you -- I

Page 4683

1 want you, please, to walk us as quickly through what -- just tell us about

2 this document, what the number means in the corner, "KTA" number, and what

3 the conclusion is of this report.

4 A. The first mark in the first square or box is the prosecution

5 number attending my finding, 24806; the name of the location where the

6 bodies were found; and the number of bodies "1/3". Then at the bottom we

7 have the possible identity with a certain name, and underneath that,

8 persons who gave blood. In this case, that was compared -- or rather the

9 mother's and father's blood was compared to part of the bodily remains and

10 bones that we found.

11 Q. Now, you just said -- or it's recorded and I think you said: "...

12 and the number of bodies '1/3'." Can you clarify for us what that means?

13 Is that -- did you mean to say number of bodies or is that the number of

14 the body, the "1/3"?

15 A. I said, well, they're the bodily remains of one body, and that

16 body was marked "1/3", and that was the marking on the bag in which that

17 body was located.

18 Q. So is it fair -- just so we're clear, this is body number 3 found

19 at the location Kamenica, and does the "1" stand for "Kamenica"?

20 A. Yes. I've already emphasised that, that the "1", there's "1/1,"

21 "1/2," "1/3" because it's the same site, the same location where the

22 bodies were found.

23 MS. SARTORIO: And can we just move to the second page, please,

24 and I'll just ask the witness a couple of questions.

25 Q. And just briefly, and I think we can probably draw the conclusion

Page 4684

1 ourself, but is this the DNA report for a body that was bagged in bag

2 number 4; is that what this represents?

3 A. Yes, that's it. Like the "1/3", this is "1/4".

4 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. May we go to the third page, please.

5 Q. And is this the DNA report for body number 8?

6 A. Yes, "1/8".

7 MS. SARTORIO: And may we move to the next report, please.

8 Q. This appears -- what is -- this is -- says "1/7". Again, can you

9 tell us what this -- this is the second one?

10 A. This is a body marked "1/7".

11 Q. Yes, but we just saw 1/7. Is this a repeat, or is this another

12 bone sample, or can you please explain why there are two reports for

13 body --

14 A. "1/7", we did see, but in that second box down at the bottom,

15 there was another sample. These are teeth, which means that this finding

16 was sent in order to identify the skull.

17 Q. Now, how many samples did you send to the ICMP laboratory of all

18 of the bodies?

19 A. Of all the bodies, we took 17 samples. But can I stress something

20 here? These were preliminary samples, because I said that the bodies had

21 not been completely examined. So this is the first step towards further

22 identification and completing of the body, because in my -- can I

23 continue?

24 Q. Sure, of course.

25 A. In my findings, when describing the body 1/8, fragments of the

Page 4685

1 skull were found, and they were marked as "1/8A" -- just a moment, please,

2 just let me check -- and "1/8B" and "1/8C."

3 Q. Now, did "A" correspond with the skull number or with the number

4 of fragments from a different part of body 8?

5 A. You mean where it says "Kamenica A, B and C"; is that what you're

6 referring to?

7 Q. No. What I'm asking for is what does the letter mean on these DNA

8 reports when it comes after --

9 A. Yes, I understand.

10 Q. Okay.

11 A. When from one body which we have in the bag -- when there's one

12 body in the bag and you send two samples, to confirm whether the skull and

13 the body belong to the same person, especially if there is doubt, then we

14 have to separate this and say "1/7" separately of that body and then the

15 next sample will be "1/7A," and send that in separate bags, separate small

16 bags, for the laboratory to examine them and do the testing separately.

17 Had we placed the bone and the tooth in bag 1/7, then the

18 laboratory would just process one sample and then we won't have the right

19 confirmation as to whether the skull and the body belongs to the same

20 person.

21 Q. Okay. But when you have -- my understanding is that you had the

22 skulls designated as "A" through "H," without the "G," so I don't want us

23 to be confused. Skull A, is it different from bone sample 1/7A?

24 A. Well, yes, because the markings are quite different. "1/8A" and

25 here we only have "A."

Page 4686

1 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. So if -- can we -- just to illustrate on --

2 can we move further in this document to where it says "Kamenica C"?

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we do --

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you move, I just want to understand one

6 thing, ma'am.

7 What were the results of the testing on 1/7 and 1/7A?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not quite clear how you mean --

9 what you mean by this.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: What I want to find out is: Did the results show

11 that sample 1/7 and 1/7A belonged to one and the same person?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what they indicate.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: And 1/8, 1/8A, same thing, too, and 8B, if there is

14 an 8B? I thought you referred to a "B" too.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have a "B" here, but 1/8 -- all I

16 have is the finding for 1/8. 1/8A DNA, the result didn't come through.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what about 1/8B; did the results come through?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1/8B wasn't even sent out, because

19 after the examination we found that there was a suspect bone which perhaps

20 did not belong to that body, so that's why I said that this was

21 preliminary.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: So 1/8B is not part of your testimony, because that

23 was not sent out for testing?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Had the body stayed with me, then

25 after the processing I would have sent out samples as they were found on

Page 4687

1 the body. However, as soon as the first findings arrived, that it was

2 related to these persons, the bodies no longer stayed with me, so I wasn't

3 able to complete the investigation or to follow it further.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't understand your answer. I don't know

5 whether you understood my question. I'm asking: Because you did not send

6 sample 1/8B for testing, therefore that sample is excluded from your

7 evidence? You're not going to tell us anything about it because --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't have the finding. All I

9 can say is that 1/8B is a fragment of a bone subsequently found during the

10 examination.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

12 You may continue.

13 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Q. Doctor, in preparation for your testimony, did you review all of

15 the DNA reports that exist with relation to this, your examination?

16 A. What I have here, the findings that I received, I looked through

17 those; that is to say, I looked at the name, surname, the location, the

18 identity as possible, to determine 99 per cent, the percentage I gave, and

19 that's what we generally use and I use as a physician.

20 Q. Right, thank you. My question -- my specific question, though,

21 is: You sent -- I believe you said earlier you sent out 17 samples, and

22 you don't have 17 DNA reports, do you?

23 A. No, I don't, and I don't think nobody has. I don't think they

24 have arrived, because from the same burial site, you might have a year go

25 by from one finding to another. That's how the ICPM works -- MP works.

Page 4688

1 Sometimes if it's marked "Urgent" by the prosecutor, then you would

2 receive findings more rapidly but not at the same time. Otherwise, it

3 takes some time.

4 Q. Can you tell us how many DNA reports that you have seen in

5 relation to your examination, this particular examination, how many DNA

6 final reports?

7 A. Nine. Let me check that again. Of those nine, three refer to one

8 person, and two are also for one person, for Radomir Blagojevic. So in

9 actual fact, five findings for two persons.

10 Q. Okay. Can you tell us the total number of persons that there have

11 been findings for in these DNA reports?

12 A. Six, six persons.

13 Q. Okay. And --

14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question.

15 If I've understood you well, out of the 17 bones which you sent in

16 so that a DNA analysis would be conducted, for nine of them you got an

17 answer and for the remaining eight, you might still be getting an answer

18 over the next few months or years perhaps?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, maybe even longer.

20 JUDGE LATTANZI: [No interpretation].


22 Q. Now, if we just do the math here, there are nine reports and six

23 identifications, but three reports refer to one and two reports refer to

24 another one. Can you tell us if, within those three reports or two

25 reports for one person, whether any of the skulls that were found along

Page 4689

1 with the skeletons, if they relate to any of the persons? And if so,

2 which ones?

3 A. For Blagojevic, Radomir Blagojevic, they coincide. The body

4 number is "1/3" and the skull is "B."

5 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you. And could we look at the report for

6 Kamenica H? I'm not sure it's -- I think it's the last page of this

7 series. It's ERN 25, so it would be the last page. Okay.

8 Q. Now, can you tell us about this finding, whether this -- this was

9 a -- this was a skull; correct?

10 A. Yes, and it's an "H."

11 Q. And in looking at the other DNA reports, there was no other --

12 there was no other body parts that -- at least that you examined and

13 tested, that related to this skull; is that -- is that correct?

14 A. In the finding, along with the skulls, there was part of the neck

15 vertebrae. I'll have a look at that finding. I don't know it off by

16 heart. Along with that skull, without the lower jaw, so the skull was

17 missing a lower jaw, but, anyway, the first cervical vertebrae was found.

18 Q. So can you tell us what number of body that is that goes with --

19 in other words, this is Kamenica H, which is -- you can tell us if this

20 appears to be the -- the report says the skull of "Pejic Mladin." What

21 body number is that?

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which part are you talking about now, Madam?

23 MS. SARTORIO: I thought she just identified the cervical part,

24 another bone, and I don't see the report for Mr. Pejic. I'm asking her

25 where that is.

Page 4690

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, but where do you get Pejic from? You're

2 talking about a report.


4 Q. Right in front of you on the screen, Doctor, what is this DNA

5 report for? Can you tell us?

6 A. Confirmation of identity on the basis of a tooth, which means from

7 the skull, which confirms that that head belonged to Pejic, Mladin, or

8 whatever the name.

9 Q. Okay. But I guess I just asked you if there were any other bones

10 and what body number Mr. Pejic was assigned -- was assigned to this skull,

11 but I -- and I don't see the report. If you could show us -- if you could

12 tell us if you have a report on that.

13 A. From this report, you can't see that, because this report is just

14 linked to this part, the tooth and the part of the skull.

15 Q. Okay. But if you could look through your other nine reports,

16 Doctor, or the other eight reports, the DNA reports, and tell me if there

17 is one that -- another one that --

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you know what, Madam Sartorio --


20 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- I think it would be simpler to say to this

21 witness can she please match the letters with the numbers, and then we

22 know who's who.

23 MS. SARTORIO: If they match.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If they match.

25 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, okay.

Page 4691

1 Q. You've given us one match, Doctor, Blagojevic. Can you tell us if

2 any of the other skulls match the body numbers, and which ones?

3 A. We have another match with 1/7.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.

5 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, we're now into detailed discussion about

6 the skulls, which is obviously an area which falls within the second part

7 of the document, and it's been stated by the Trial Chamber that we're not

8 to deal with those matters today.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon. I'm sorry, my fault.

10 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. I'll move on, Your Honour, just quickly.

11 Q. Now, Doctor, I'd like to concentrate just briefly for a few

12 questions on your report.

13 May the witness please be shown the first part of her report,

14 which is Exhibit 654.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm getting a little confused, ma'am. Has this

16 witness's report been tendered into evidence already?

17 MS. SARTORIO: The first half, the bodies through 1/7, as 654,

18 Exhibit 654.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Really?

20 MS. SARTORIO: At the beginning, I asked her if she confirmed her

21 report. No?

22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Page 55 through 70.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Page 55 through 70, was that the report?


25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 4692

1 MS. SARTORIO: Just a minute, Your Honour.

2 Apparently there's a technical problem, so -- but I -- I thought

3 it had been -- is it admitted in evidence, it just doesn't have a number?

4 We need to bring up P02964, page 55 through 70, again. But I thought it

5 had been assigned -- I wrote "654" on it, but --

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Sartorio, can you confirm that the expert's

8 report is indeed P2964?

9 MS. SARTORIO: It's contained within the range of 2964. There's

10 a -- the ERN range of that document runs 34 pages, and the first half of

11 the doctor's report is in that range, and it's pages 55 through 70 in the

12 English.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would like to see page 55.

14 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. It's page 27 -- or 26 in the Bosnian

15 language, but ...

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, is this it on the screen?

17 MS. SARTORIO: No. P02964.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which was Exhibit 653.

19 MS. SARTORIO: I've been told to -- it's going to be worked out,

20 the numbers. I don't know exactly.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fifty-five to 70 was Exhibit 654.

22 MS. SARTORIO: Okay, I would like the witness to look at it.

23 The Bosnian version is up on the screen, but the English is not

24 yet.

25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

Page 4693

1 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. I would like the witness to be --

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this the first page of --

3 MS. SARTORIO: It is, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you so much, ma'am.

5 MS. SARTORIO: Well, there's actually a cover page with the

6 doctor's name on it, but this is the first page of the substantive report.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I've been reading the cover page. That's why

8 [Microphone not activated].

9 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. I want the witness, please, to see the last

10 sentence of her report with regard to body 1/1, so it's the second page in

11 English, and scroll down in Bosnian, please. I think we need to go -- the

12 next page in English, please. It's the end of the -- before you

13 see "1/2." Okay, so it would be the next page in Bosnian as well. Thank

14 you.

15 Q. Okay, Doctor, I'd like to direct your attention to -- to your last

16 sentence with regard to body 1/1 and ask you if you would read it and if

17 you have any comments on what you wrote.

18 A. "Death was probably violent and arrived as a result of the

19 complete interruption of the continuity of the cervical spine, which also

20 resulted in separation of the head from the body."

21 Q. Can you tell us how you arrived at this conclusion?

22 A. By examining the body remains, body parts, where I deal with

23 injuries and changes, and it says that the body of the sixth cervical

24 vertebrae, in the lower half, was cut off with a smooth blade

25 incorporating the right side of the body and that certain parts are

Page 4694

1 lacking. The lower edge and lower adjacent edge has impairments to the

2 plate.

3 The findings whereby this was a smooth blade cutting off the

4 cervical vertebrae in a sweep cuts the continuity between the body and the

5 head.

6 Q. Now, just a question. We spoke earlier, I believe, and also at a

7 prior occasion on -- based on your limited examination, given the nature

8 of what your task was, were you able to determine what actually caused the

9 death of this person? And if -- and what do you mean by this last

10 sentence?

11 A. Cause of death -- the exact cause of death cannot be established

12 exactly, because a lot of time went by for us to be able to say whether

13 the cross-sections cut off that were found, whether they were caused

14 during life or immediately after death.

15 This last portion explains the fact that that could be a possible

16 cause of death, because injuries of this type found on a body and left

17 that way would bring about death ultimately.

18 Q. In other words, you can't have life with a complete interruption

19 of continuity of the cervical spine, can you?

20 A. In order for you to reach this vertebra, because the vertebrae are

21 in the posterior part of the neck, you have to cut through the soft

22 tissue, through the blood vessels, and you have to penetrate the

23 respiratory tract, and this is more than enough to cause death.

24 Q. But if this could have been done -- could this have been done

25 after death, Doctor?

Page 4695

1 A. It could have.

2 Q. Based on your examination, you are unable to determine if it was

3 before or after death, are you?

4 A. It was too long ago in order for anybody to be able to say with

5 any degree of certainty whether this was done during life or after death.

6 There was no vital tissue, there was no vital reaction in order to tell us

7 that.

8 MS. SARTORIO: Just a few more questions.

9 May the witness be shown the end of number 2, 1/2, please, which

10 is page 4 -- top of the page 4 in English. It's the end of section 1/2.

11 Q. Now, Doctor, I'd like you to read the next-to-the-last sentence,

12 to the sentence that talks about taking the DNA, and ask you if you can

13 comment on what your conclusion was in this report with regard to this

14 body.

15 A. A fracture of the lower joint part of the left calf bone, which is

16 the beneath-the-knee bone, with the damage inflicted to the bone surface

17 after the death and the damage of the interior upper part of the left shin

18 bone. When I talk about damage, in our findings we mostly refer to the

19 damage inflicted after death, either when the body was moved or as a

20 result of humidity in the grave, and mostly as a result of that, these

21 surfaces are damaged, they are not fractured to indicate a trauma. They

22 are damaged rather than fractured.

23 Q. Okay. So this is -- When you refer to this, you mean this damage

24 was inflicted by something -- well, strike that. You already answered

25 that other question, I believe.

Page 4696

1 May the witness now be shown the last part of the examination

2 report on 1/4, please. Thank you.

3 Now, if you could read, Doctor, the next-to-the-last sentence of

4 your findings under "1/4". And again you refer to -- you say death was

5 probably violent, and -- at least that's what the English says. I'd like

6 you to confirm what it says in the Bosnian language and what you mean by

7 this.

8 A. "The above-described cuts of the part of vertebra and both

9 shin-bones indicate an action delivered by a swinging blade of a hard

10 mechanical object. The death was probably violent and caused by the

11 interrupted functioning of the cervical spine and the severance of the

12 head."

13 Again, in this body, when it comes to the changes and injuries, we

14 found a linear cut on the lateral side of the third cervical vertebra with

15 a cut of the bone of the lower anterior part of the body. Again, we found

16 changes on the cervical vertebra, and as I've already told you, in order

17 to reach the vertebra, you have to damage the very important vital parts

18 of the body that can be found in the neck.

19 Q. And just two other sections I'd like you to you comment on,

20 Doctor. The end of the report on 1/6, if you would.

21 A. The death was probably violent and caused by a politrauma. In

22 this body, we found several fractures, as can be seen from the findings; a

23 fracture of the ribs, of the shoulder bone, of the femur, and the lower

24 leg bones, which means that there were multiple fractures which translates

25 as politrauma in our diagnosis, or several mechanical injuries.

Page 4697

1 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you. I have no further questions of this

2 witness, Your Honour, on this part of her report. Thank you.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Sartorio.

4 Mr. Robson.

5 Cross-examination by Mr. Robson:

6 Q. Good afternoon, Doctor. My name is Nicholas Robson, and I'll be

7 asking you some questions on behalf of General Delic.

8 So, Doctor, could you just confirm that your involvement in this

9 matter began when you performed the autopsy at the morgue at Visoko?

10 A. My involvement in this started when we first took samples for the

11 DNA analysis.

12 Q. And that was during the autopsy which you performed together with

13 Dr. Karan; is that correct?

14 A. It is not correct. We did not do the autopsy together. We only

15 took the samples together. Once the samples were taken, I did the exam

16 together with my assistant.

17 Q. Do you know, were photographs taken of the exhumation site prior

18 to the autopsy taking place?

19 A. Based on my long experience with exhumations, every exhumation is

20 photographed; the grave, before it is dug out, when the grave is open and

21 the bodies are exposed. When the body is cleaned, another photo is

22 taken. Then when the body is placed in a bag, before the transportation

23 another photo is taken with the markings on the bag. So this is the

24 series of photos that are taken on the ground and that concern the

25 exhumation process.

Page 4698

1 Q. As I understand your answer, you say in general, photographs are

2 taken of the exhumation site, but do you know, in this specific case, were

3 photographs taken?

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson, the reason is because she says she

5 didn't attend the exhumation, so she wouldn't know that.

6 MR. ROBSON: Well, Your Honour, it may be the photographs were

7 presented as -- to the witness at some stage, and that's what I'm trying

8 to establish.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then the question should be: Did you see any

10 photographs of the exhumation, if any at all?

11 MR. ROBSON: Yes, Your Honour.

12 Q. Can you answer what Judge Moloto just stated? Did you see any

13 photographs of this exhumation site?

14 A. I didn't.

15 Q. Now, according to your witness statement, you said that DNA

16 samples were taken from the femur of the bodies, and in relation to the

17 skulls, DNA samples were taken from the teeth; is that right?

18 A. I don't understand one part of your question. What has the femur

19 got to do with the skull? You said something of the femur that had to do

20 something with the skull. What did you mean?

21 Q. I think that was the translation of my question. I'll break it

22 down.

23 In relation to the bodies, is it right that the DNA sample was

24 taken from the femur, in general?

25 A. That's common practice. If teeth are missing, then the laboratory

Page 4699

1 recommends that the DNA sample be taken from the femur bone, because the

2 femur is the easiest for the extraction of the DNA.

3 Q. And in relation to the skulls, the DNA sample was taken from one

4 of the -- one of the teeth?

5 A. Teeth have the priority, if they're present. If they're not, then

6 the next option is the femur.

7 Q. In relation to this autopsy, you told us that you carried -- that

8 you took DNA samples before the bodies were examined and that that was not

9 the usual procedure. Why didn't you follow the normal procedure on this

10 occasion?

11 A. For a certain reason. People who decided on the procedure asked

12 that the DNA sample be taken first. I am usually against that, because

13 you never know, before having examined every single body, whether there is

14 a surplus body. On that day, representatives of the two commissions

15 turned up. A doctor came from Banja Luka. The crime technicians were

16 there. And I believe and I dare say the things on that day were done ad

17 hoc.

18 Q. Now, you've said that in general, photographs are taken of the

19 bodies during an autopsy. Do you know, were photographs taken that day of

20 these remains?

21 A. On that day, when we were taking the samples, photos were taken.

22 On my part, I could only insist on observing the taking of the photographs

23 and that every bone sample be placed in a bag and that it be marked with

24 a "KT" marking of the prosecution, the prosecution and the number of the

25 body, and then every bag would be sealed. At the end, a photo of all the

Page 4700

1 taken samples was taken as one photo.

2 Q. Now, after the samples were taken, you told us that you examined,

3 washed and reconstructed the bodies; is that right?

4 A. That's the procedure. First the bones are washed, then the body

5 is reconstructed, and then the autopsy begins.

6 Q. And do you know, were photographs taken of the reconstructed

7 bodies?

8 A. I know once I finished the procedure, I called the inspector and

9 the crime technicians in this case from the cantonal MUP. I usually make

10 a note of the time that the photos are taken, so I'm sure that I will be

11 able to find that in my report, the date and the time.

12 On 10 July 2006.

13 Q. Do you have copies of those photographs, if any, with you?

14 A. I never keep any photos. This is part of the photo documentation

15 that is kept either by the prosecutor or by the MUP.

16 Q. Now, the DNA samples, you've told us, were sent off to the ICMP;

17 is that correct?

18 A. Samples are not sent off to the ICMP -- oh, no, I'm sorry, you're

19 right. I apologise. Yes, the ICMP, yes, that's the international

20 commission, yes.

21 Q. Now, I'd just like to clarify something in your statement.

22 At paragraph 22 of the statement, you said that the ICMP sent

23 their original findings back to you. What is meant by "original

24 findings"?

25 A. I believe that this should have been the other way around. I

Page 4701

1 thought that those were preliminary findings, because the bodies had not

2 been processed, and the ICMP sends me their findings after the matching

3 between the bones and the blood, and this is the only form of findings I

4 ever received from them.

5 Q. So the findings that ICMP send to you, those are preliminary

6 findings; is that right?

7 A. No. In our cases -- actually, it says here a possible identity.

8 This is the final findings. After that, we don't receive anything else.

9 There's no further confirmation. This is the final findings from the

10 laboratory and narrowing down the identification to 99.9 per cent.

11 Q. I'll come back to this topic a little bit later. What I'd just

12 like to check with you is -- yes, it's something that you said in response

13 to the Prosecution -- the Prosecutor.

14 You were shown one of the DNA reports, and you said that as soon

15 as the first finding arrived, "the bodies no longer stayed with me." Can

16 you just explain that in a bit more detail, please, what you meant by

17 that?

18 A. As soon as the initial findings arrived from the ICMP with the

19 names of the persons of Serbian ethnicity, the hand-over of the bodies was

20 carried out. I am not sure. It may be that the findings kept on coming,

21 but they came to the doctor in Banja Luka. The bodies were no longer in

22 Visoko by that time.

23 Q. From your evidence, I had the impression that the normal practice

24 would be for you to hold on to the bodies after the initial findings

25 arrived. Would that have been so that you could have carried out further

Page 4702

1 investigation?

2 A. These bodies were not finished, from the medical point of view, I

3 would say. We have an example here of DNA findings, Kamenica 177, where

4 the skull belonged to the body. We also have part of the body 1/7A, of

5 Bozidar Todorovic, which continues. The body -- we have a bone here, but

6 under -- an elbow bone. But now under 144 [as interpreted] we have the

7 same person appearing, Bozidar Todorovic, with a femoral bone, which means

8 that one part of the body was on the number 114 and the other part of the

9 body was under 117.

10 If you look at my findings -- let me not complicate the matter,

11 and let me try and put it in simple terms.

12 What you can find at the body 1/7, for example, is missing with

13 the body of 1/4, and it is possible that both bones belong to one and the

14 same person. In practical terms, we have a femoral bone, we have an elbow

15 bone in two different places, under two different numbers.

16 Q. Let's try to clarify that. You mentioned a few things there.

17 So initial findings came in from ICMP. In your view, the bodies

18 were not finished with, from the medical point of view. However, you had

19 to send the bodies away before you could complete a proper and thorough

20 investigation; is that a fair summary?

21 A. Correct. Neither medical procedure nor the identification were

22 complete. The DNA findings is merely one segment of the whole

23 identification process.

24 Q. Do you know why the bodies were sent away before the -- before a

25 full investigation could be completed?

Page 4703

1 A. I really -- believe me, I did not go into those reasons. I just

2 do my bit, the bit that is the doctor's part. Unfortunately, some people

3 interfere with that and then they prevent you from completing your part of

4 the job.

5 Q. Right. I'd like to ask you about the report --

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you saying, Doctor, that you didn't complete

7 the job finally? In other words, the bodies were never brought back to

8 you to complete your job?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The bodies were not returned to me,

10 and the job was not finished because that person did not end up having all

11 of their bones and they were not ready for identification, although it was

12 possible for the colleague in Banja Luka to continue working where I left

13 it off, using my findings and the DNA results.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you just answer my question with a "yes" or

15 a "no"? You never finally completed the job?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's all I wanted to know. I didn't understand.

18 You may proceed, Mr. Robson.

19 MR. ROBSON: Thank you.

20 Q. And just to clarify, you said that people interfered, and you've

21 told us that the remains were sent to Banja Luka. Could you tell us, who

22 interfered in this process?

23 A. The first person who issues order and whose orders I have to carry

24 out is the cantonal prosecutor. If the prosecutor decides to hand the

25 bodies over to a different doctor, in agreement with the Commission, it is

Page 4704

1 not up to me to change that decision. I am not even in a position to do

2 anything about it.

3 Q. So it's the prosecutor who decided that the bodies have to be sent

4 off to Banja Luka before the investigation could be completed?

5 A. Since I swore to be telling the truth at the beginning of my

6 testimony, I have to say that this is the ugly part that I never really

7 investigated. I just took the papers, the record of the hand-over, which

8 says that the hand-over had been agreed.

9 Sometimes the situation is the other way around. For example, we

10 had bodies in Banja Luka that had been identified as Muslims, and those

11 bodies, after the procedure, were delivered to us and were available to us

12 for subsequent examination or whatever.

13 Q. So just to clarify the question, was it the prosecutor that

14 decided that the bodies had to go to Banja Luka?

15 A. I can only assume he was the person responsible for the bodies,

16 because he followed the bodies from the beginning of the exhumation, and I

17 believe that nobody's in a position to do anything without the

18 prosecutor's express approval.

19 Q. And when you say the bodies were sent to Banja Luka, by that, they

20 were sent to the appropriate authorities in Republika Srpska; is that so?

21 A. Just a moment. I found the paper that I have. It was signed by

22 the cantonal prosecutor, and it says the subject is the hand-over of the

23 bodily remains, where he explains. I happen to have that because I

24 prepared for this trial. Otherwise, this isn't my line of work.

25 Q. Could you just tell us, please, what the prosecutor orders in that

Page 4705

1 document?

2 A. He's not ordering here. It says that the subject --

3 under "Subject," it is the hand-over of the bodily remains. It

4 says: "Document 0146405, 2006, of the 13th of September 2006, the Federal

5 Commission for Missing Persons of Sarajevo went to the prosecutor with the

6 request to hand over the remains of the persons exhumed in Kamenica

7 Municipality in order to hand over --"

8 THE INTERPRETER: A little slower, please, could the witness read

9 slower?

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you read slower, please, ma'am.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Where did I get to? Where were you

12 able to follow me? Up to what point?

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon. " ... Kamenica Municipality in

15 order to hand over ...," and then you disappeared from there.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The locality of Kamenica, Zavidovici

17 Municipality, in order to hand over the latter to the Office for Missing

18 and Captured Persons of Republika Srpska, with the aim of establishing the

19 final identification process. In this connection, the Federal Commission

20 for Missing Persons is given permission to take all the bodily remains of

21 the bodies exhumed at the Kamenica locality of Zavidovici Municipality, in

22 the case --

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio.

24 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, I believe this is an exhibit, and it

25 might be just easier to show the witness the exhibit again, because I

Page 4706

1 believe this came in through the previous witness, yes, the hand-over --

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.

3 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm not in a position to confirm that.

4 It's -- without knowing the date or any of the details, I can't say.

5 So --

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: But is there a document? I mean, this witness here

7 is not a fact witness, she's an expert witness, and I think you are trying

8 to test her memory on anything. If there's a document we can show her, if

9 she can tell us and it will cut down a lot of time.

10 MR. ROBSON: Sure. Your Honour, I don't have that exhibit at

11 hand, so I cannot confirm from what we just heard whether or not the

12 exhibit is that same document. But perhaps what I could just simply ask

13 to the witness and move on is this:

14 Q. So, Doctor, from that document it's clear that the body remains

15 are to be sent onwards to the Office for Missing and Captured Persons of

16 Republika Srpska for final identification?

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Identification?


19 Q. In other words, final identification was still to take place at

20 the time that that document was issued?

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, is that what the witness said?

22 MR. ROBSON: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: What line? Oh, yes, I can see it.

24 MR. ROBSON: It's just disappeared. Fifty-four, line 7 or 8, I

25 think.

Page 4707

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I've seen it, thank you.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say that, I read it.


4 Q. So would you agree with me, Doctor, that according to that

5 document, final identification is to take place once the remains had been

6 sent on to the Office for Missing and Captured Persons for Republika

7 Srpska?

8 A. Judging by this document that I just read out together with you,

9 it means that they were sent on for final identification.

10 Q. Doctor, I'd like to turn to your report. You have a hard copy in

11 front of you there; is that right?

12 Just so I'm not repeating myself in respect of each body, can you

13 confirm that all of the bodies that you mention in your report were in a

14 skeletalised condition?

15 A. That's what it says in all the findings. As no tissues are found,

16 osteological examination is conducted of the skeleton, which means the

17 skeletons there.

18 Q. Okay. Now, I'd like to turn to 1/1, the first body.

19 Perhaps, please, if this -- if the expert report could be brought

20 up on our screen.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's Exhibit 654.

22 MR. ROBSON: And I believe it's going to be page number 3 in the

23 English version. I can refer to the Bosnian page number, if necessary,

24 unless the doctor has her report in front of her.

25 If you'll just bear with me a moment.

Page 4708

1 So 1/1 starts at the page before this in English, so if we can

2 just go back one page, please. It's the next page in B/C/S.

3 If we go to the bottom of that page in the English version,

4 please.

5 So here we can see where findings 1/1 begins. If we can go on to

6 the next page, please, and see the doctor's findings. And if we can

7 scroll towards -- this is fine. If we can go down -- go down, please. And

8 perhaps if we can just enlarge the page so we can see the -- that's fine.

9 Q. So, Doctor, in respect of these body remains, we can see that the

10 head was missing and also the bones of the hands and feet were missing; is

11 that so?

12 A. As it says here, the body was incomplete. And then I state what

13 was missing on that body.

14 Q. Go on to the next page in English, in the English version,

15 please. If we can go to the top of the page, we can see, Doctor, that

16 there was a cut to the sixth cervical vertebrae and also linear fractures

17 to both shoulder blades. A little bit further down, we can see your

18 conclusion, and what you say is:

19 "The changes found in the part of the above-described cervical

20 vertebrae point to an action of a broadly-swung blade belonging to a hard

21 mechanical object."

22 You then go on to conclude:

23 "The death was probably violent and arrived as a result of a

24 complete interruption of the continuity of the cervical spine, which also

25 resulted in the separation of the head from the body."

Page 4709

1 Now, I have a few questions for you about this.

2 First of all, you've confirmed that this was a skeletonised body

3 and that there were bones missing from the hands and the feet and also the

4 skull. This Trial Chamber has heard evidence, and, Your Honours, I can

5 give you the reference if necessary, in which a witness was asked the

6 following question:

7 "Is it your assessment that the bodies that were found at the

8 Kamenica grave were initially buried at some other location and then

9 subsequently dug up and moved to the Kamenica location?"

10 That witness answered: "Yes."

11 He was then asked:

12 "So this would mean that the burial location at Kamenica was a

13 secondary burial location?"

14 And to that the witness said: "Yes."

15 Now, based on what you saw of the findings -- sorry, what you saw

16 of the body remains, would you agree with what that witness had to say,

17 that there was evidence here that these body remains had been moved at

18 some stage?

19 A. Since most of the bodies were incomplete, and not only the tissue

20 was missing, but the bones, too, then in fact it was a case of bodies that

21 had been transferred, but probably in the skeletal state for such small

22 bone fragments to have been lost. The bodies moved, because bodies, if

23 they're not moved, then they're found in continuity, as we say.

24 Q. All right. So you say in fact it was a case of bodies that had

25 been transferred. If the bodies had been transferred, it would follow

Page 4710

1 from that that at some earlier stage, the bodies would have to have been

2 dug up from another location; would you agree with me?

3 A. Yes, I agree with you.

4 And now I just wanted to emphasise one point, and this is where

5 it's important that I wasn't on location, because you can see a lot if

6 you're on site. You can see the position of the bodies and make your

7 deductions. So if there were photographs taken, you could also see that

8 on the photographs.

9 Q. So if the bodies had been removed from a primary burial location

10 to the Kamenica grave which was a secondary burial location, it would be

11 logical to assume that some sort of tools or equipment had been used to

12 move those bodies; would you agree with that?

13 A. It depends if the bodies are on the surface or if they're dug deep

14 into the ground. I'm not an expert in that area, so I can't really say.

15 But from my aspect, from my own aspect, I can say that there were no

16 technical injuries, major technical injuries on the body, which you can

17 see if there is rough manipulation of the bodies, the bodies are roughly

18 handled.

19 Q. I know that we're speculating to a certain extent, but if the

20 bodies had been buried at the primary location and they had been dug out

21 of the ground, it's possible, is it not, that the bodies could have been

22 damaged during the process of removing them?

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Has the witness not said it depends on whether the

24 bodies were dug up from under the ground or were on the surface of the

25 ground.

Page 4711


2 Q. Doctor, you said that there were no technical injuries, major

3 technical injuries, but you would agree with me they were --

4 A. On the basis of my experience, I say that if you have the skeletal

5 remains, then you can see if an excavator has been used, or picks and

6 shovels. They're the kind of rough marks that you could notice on

7 skeletal remains. But if they were carefully transported, that's

8 different.

9 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I note the time.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. We take a break and come back at quarter to

11 6.00.

12 Court adjourned.

13 --- Recess taken at 5.15 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 5.45 p.m.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.


17 Q. Doctor, returning back to body 1/1, in your report you note that

18 there are linear fractures of both shoulder blades. Now, you agree that

19 the bodies were transferred to the Kamenica gravesite. Would you accept

20 that it's possible that the shoulder blades were damaged during the

21 process of transfer?

22 A. These bones, especially in part of the body, are sometimes damaged

23 through pressure of the earth on them. Some bones are susceptible to

24 changes in the atmosphere where they're dug in. And we very often find

25 fractures of this type in bodies that have not been moved and transferred.

Page 4712

1 Q. So those are some of the possible causes of the fractures, but is

2 also another possible cause the process of movement, transfer from one

3 location to another?

4 A. Possible, yes.

5 Q. Now, in relation to the damage to the cervical vertebrae, you say

6 that that points to the action of a hard mechanical object. If it was the

7 case that these bodies were dug from the ground at the primary burial

8 location, would you agree with me that it is possible that the equipment

9 used to dig out the bodies could constitute the hard mechanical object

10 which caused the damage to this vertebrae?

11 A. I've already said, and it also says in my findings, that there is

12 a clear distinction between damages where fractures are stipulated and

13 where the cut surfaces are stated. So the vertebrae has a small surface

14 area, and of the means used at exhumations, it is rare that damages of

15 this kind are caused. This is an injury, not a damage.

16 Q. Am I right in saying you don't have any photographs or anything

17 with you in which you could demonstrate to us what you've just explained?

18 A. I don't have any photograph.

19 Q. I want to go back to what you've just said in your testimony

20 shortly before you concluded your examination-in-chief.

21 The Prosecutor asked you about establishing cause of death, and

22 what you said is:

23 "The exact cause of death cannot be established."

24 And you mentioned that a lot of time went by, and you can't say

25 whether the -- and this is in relation to the damage to the vertebrae, you

Page 4713

1 can't say whether that was caused during life or immediately after death.

2 You recall saying that?

3 A. I do.

4 Q. I'd like to refer you to the conclusion that you've put in this

5 report in relation to 1/1. And what you said was:

6 "The death was probably violent and arrived as a result of a

7 complete interruption of the continuity of the cervical spine, which

8 resulted in a separation of the head from the body."

9 You can't say whether the vertebrae or the spine was severed while

10 the person was alive or after they were dead, can you?

11 A. That's what I said, that at this point in time you can no longer

12 establish whether this injury was caused during the person's life or after

13 the person had died.

14 Q. Then may I ask you, why did you put this conclusion in your

15 report, that death was probably violent and arrived as a result of a

16 complete interruption? If you didn't know that for certain, why did you

17 speculate and include that in the report?

18 A. It is our practice that when stating our opinion, we can stipulate

19 what changes or injuries on the body we consider to be the possible cause

20 of death. And I've already said that we're dealing with injuries which,

21 when found on a skeleton, are incompatible with life, and that would be

22 injuries to the vertebrae, because we have politrauma, as I've said, where

23 other bones were fractured as well, the long bones.

24 Q. Would you agree with me that what you've concluded here is rather

25 stronger than what you consider to be the possible cause of death? You

Page 4714

1 have stated that death arrived "as a result." In other words, as I

2 understand your report, you are saying with certainty that that was the

3 cause of death.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: In fairness to the witness, Mr. Robson, if you read

5 that sentence from its beginning, it says that the "the death was

6 probably," and if you accept that probability, then the part that you are

7 reading would become true.

8 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I take on board what you're saying, but

9 essentially it may be a language matter, but what I'm trying to explore

10 is: Does the "probably" just attach to the "violent" or does

11 the "probably" attach to the violent part and the latter conclusion, and

12 that's what I'm trying to explore.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, but the sentence clearly says:

14 "If you accept the probability that death was a result of

15 violence, which resulted in that interruption," then of course you would

16 come to the conclusion that that violence is the one that caused the

17 separation of the head from the body, only if you accept the probability.

18 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, in my submission, it's open to

19 interpretation, and I'm trying to explore what the witness was trying to

20 state here.

21 So, Doctor --

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: But, you see, my concern is when you say her

23 conclusion is firm and strong, but it is based on the probability. It's

24 only firm to the extent that the probability is found to be true.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can explain. May I be allowed to

Page 4715

1 explain?

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may do so, ma'am.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I write my findings, and every

4 grave has its specific features, then usually I conduct an analysis of the

5 bodies and then I form an opinion, and I put in the probability element.

6 Now, following these bodies and the injuries found on them, if on,

7 for example, body number 1 you have an injury to the fourth cervical

8 vertebra and then on body 2 you don't have the first and second vertebrae,

9 and then on body 4 you have an injury to the third cervical vertebra, and

10 on body 5, for example, you also have an injury to the third cervical

11 vertebra, then on body 7 you have the same injury of the third and fourth

12 cervical vertebrae, then that indicates a probability, a greater

13 probability of those being injuries than damages -- rather than damages,

14 injuries rather than damages.


16 Q. Thank you for that, Doctor. What I was trying to explore with

17 you, and please correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but in your

18 conclusion for body 1/1, are you saying that death arrived as a result, in

19 other words, it was definite that death arrived as a result of the

20 vertebrae being interrupted, or are you just saying that that was a

21 possibility?

22 A. First of all, in my finding, you don't have a conclusion

23 anywhere. There's no section entitled "Conclusion," with a conclusion.

24 So you can look at this as an autopsy or an examination. After an autopsy

25 and the examination, you come to the expertise, expert finding, and only

Page 4716

1 then do all the other circumstances in the case come into play. And then

2 within the frameworks of all that, when you have all the facts and

3 circumstances, can you say with greater certain -- can you discuss this

4 with greater certainty.

5 Q. Right. So if I understand you correctly, this deals -- this

6 report deals with the autopsy, but it doesn't deal with the expert finding

7 which would have occurred had a further examination of the bodies taken

8 place?

9 A. No. In my line of work, you have your first step, and that is the

10 examination, that's the first step, or the autopsy if the body is

11 complete. Those are the first steps. And then all the injuries and

12 changes that you come across are recorded for an opinion to be established

13 on the basis of the changes. Now, in my country, the process is as

14 follows: Then you go on to an expert examination where you have insight

15 into all the different components, and when the Court or some other

16 institution establishes certain facts and then comes back to me and asks

17 me, "Is that how that could have happened," when they have something

18 concrete-specific to look at, then we take another look and see whether

19 what I have and the other circumstances of the case match, whether they

20 are -- whether they are in keeping with one another.

21 So this is not a definite opinion in the sense of cause of death.

22 Q. So no expert findings have been carried out in relation to these

23 remains; this report we have relates to the earlier stage alone?

24 A. The first step.

25 Q. Right. I'll move on and try and move quickly through the other

Page 4717

1 remains.

2 If we could turn to I think it's page number 4 in the English

3 version, a document. It's body -- the body remains 1/2. It's probably

4 the next -- if we can turn to the next page, please. If we could go to

5 the page after that as well, please. And if we can scroll down to the

6 bottom.

7 So, Doctor, in this report you discuss the parts of the body which

8 are missing from these body remains. With this body, the head is missing,

9 but it's right, isn't it, that there's nothing to suggest, in relation to

10 this body, that the head was severed?

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: If the head is missing, how was it not severed?

12 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, in respect of -- well, let me explore

13 that with the witness and I'll try to answer.

14 Q. Doctor, in relation to the other body remains where you have

15 stated that there's a possibility that the head has been -- the spine has

16 been interrupted, in relation to this body, there's no markings on the

17 cervical vertebrae to suggest that the vertebrae have been cut at any

18 time; is that so?

19 A. As can be seen in the findings, no, there isn't a description of

20 that, so there were no injuries, except to say that the first and second

21 and seventh cervical vertebrae were missing. And in this part of the

22 findings, you might have noticed that there is no opinion as to the

23 probable cause of death, no opinion is stated, because if you apply the

24 same analogy with this body, you have the linear fracture of the left

25 shoulder blade, which I said was frequent under the impact of the weight

Page 4718

1 of the earth, or the small damages, so I don't state the cause of death.

2 Q. So in relation to these body remains, is it possible that the

3 skull could have become detached from the body by the natural process of

4 deterioration, and when the body remains were moved, the skull was perhaps

5 left behind?

6 A. That is always possible, if the body is in the stage of

7 skeletalisation. Mostly, the head will become separated from the rest of

8 the body, if we are talking about a skeleton.

9 Q. Moving on to body remains 1/3, if we could please move on to the

10 next page in the document on our screens. And if we can go to the next

11 page again in the English version.

12 In respect of these remains, Doctor, you've noted that there were

13 cuts in the shin-bones of the skeleton. Do you see that in your report?

14 A. You mean on page 3 or page 4?

15 Q. I think it's page 5 in your document, Doctor.

16 A. On page 5, I can see body number 1/4. Are we talking about that

17 body or the body 1/3?

18 Q. It's probably the page before. You describe the condition of the

19 body and you note that there are cuts in both the left shinbone and also

20 the right shinbone. Do you recall making those findings in relation to

21 this body?

22 A. I remember, and I have it in my findings.

23 Q. Would you agree with me that this is evidence that could suggest

24 that the bodies were damaged by tools during the process of either digging

25 them out of the ground or moving them to this secondary burial location?

Page 4719

1 A. I repeat and I emphasise, the tools used for digging are, for the

2 most part, a shovel or similar things. Here we can see cuts with a very

3 short space between these cuts. They run parallel to each other. Usually

4 when digging out the bodies, when one encounters a body, and bear in mind

5 that these bodies are in a good state to this day, so usually when you

6 encounter a body, you can feel that and you can hear the sound of the tool

7 hitting that bone. That is why my opinion is that these cuts were not the

8 result of damage incurred during the digging out of the body.

9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Robson, could we elicit from the witness some

10 sort of knowledge about how soon does a body become a skeleton, how many

11 years after its burial?


13 Q. Doctor, could you help us with that? I would imagine the answer

14 is, "It depends," but if you could please assist with that question.

15 A. The answer will be: It depends. It depends on the conditions.

16 I had bodies in which skeletalisation started after 11 days, or

17 actually 11 days after the burial, there was nothing but a skeleton. But

18 we also come across bodies or skeletons that are covered with tissue, they

19 are mummified but they do have tissue. It all depends on the conditions

20 of the soil in which the body is buried, especially bearing in mind that a

21 majority of these bodies -- and I don't know about these particular ones,

22 but a majority of these bodies were wrapped either in clothes or in some

23 sort of sacks, so the tissue must have been preserved for longer.

24 Q. So just to go back, you mentioned that the cuts you saw in the

25 shin-bones were parallel cuts. That could be some sort of tool, couldn't

Page 4720

1 it, as opposed to a weapon?

2 A. I will again quote an example and tell you that in the same way as

3 in the vertebrae, and in the same way as in the body number 3, number 4,

4 the cuts are on both shin-bones and they are very similar.

5 Q. But, again, you don't exclude the possibility that it was some

6 sort of tool that caused these markings?

7 A. There may be a tool that I've not seen or heard of before.

8 MR. ROBSON: All right. I want to move to 1/6. If we could

9 please move through the report. We can move forward about four or five --

10 four pages. It's the seventh page in the B/C/S version.

11 Q. Now Doctor, in respect of these body remains, you have given your

12 opinion that the extremities of the long bones, collarbones and ribs show

13 that damage occurred after death. Do you see that in your statement?

14 It's in the next page in the English version.

15 A. At the beginning, on page 7, you mean? I said the extremities of

16 the long bones, the collarbones and ribs, with damage inflicted

17 postmortem.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. There is even a part where I found the damage of the fracture

20 edges, which was inflicted postmortem. In other words, every fracture

21 edge is observed in order to see whether any subsequent damage was

22 inflicted to the fracture edge postmortem.

23 Q. And I think you said earlier in your evidence that there was a lot

24 of damage to this particular body. Is that so?

25 A. As far as I can remember, I said, about this body, that it had

Page 4721

1 suffered a politrauma, that there were fractures in addition to the

2 evident damage.

3 Q. And can you confirm for us, from looking at your report, that

4 again there's no evidence which indicates that any of the cervical

5 vertebrae had been cut on this particular body?

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: First and second, first and second. Go to the

7 beginning under anthropological analysis.


9 Q. Doctor, the first and second vertebrae were missing, but rather

10 like the earlier body, there's no evidence to show that there were any

11 cuts to any of the other cervical vertebrae?

12 A. This is not mentioned in the findings. It is also -- it is only

13 said that these vertebrae are missing. And further on in the findings, it

14 is not stated that they were found on the other vertebrae.

15 MR. ROBSON: If we can just turn over the page to the

16 second-from-last sentence in relation to this body.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Body number 6?

18 MR. ROBSON: Yes, body number 6.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's on the same page.

20 MR. ROBSON: Okay.

21 Q. Doctor, what you say there is that the death was probably violent

22 as a result of a politrauma. Does this conflict with what you say

23 earlier, where you've described that the damage, in your opinion, occurred

24 after death? So earlier, in relation to this body, you discuss how damage

25 was caused after death, in your opinion, and yet you've concluded that the

Page 4722

1 death was probably violent as a result of a politrauma. Is it possible to

2 explain that?

3 A. Yes. You are only pointing to the first part of the description,

4 where the damage is described. However, below that you will see "a spiral

5 fracture of the right clavicle." A spiral fracture does not result from

6 damage. It rather occurs through torsion of an arm that offers

7 resistance.

8 As for the long bones, unlike the vertebrae, it is specific that

9 they sometimes indicate that injuries were inflicted during the life of

10 the person, because the outer layer of the bone tends to protect the bone

11 during life. That is why the original, initial fracture is always

12 accompanied with hairline fractures that are separate from the main or

13 original fracture.

14 Likewise --

15 Q. Sorry, Doctor, perhaps just to clarify this: Unlike the bodies

16 where there was a cut to the cervical vertebrae, in relation to this body

17 do you think there is a high likelihood that the death resulted from

18 politrauma or, again, are you unable to say whether the politrauma

19 occurred during life or after death?

20 A. Based on the fractures on this body, which I mentioned and refer

21 to them as "spiral fractures," and the depressed multi-fracture of the

22 body of the right femur, I was able to state, in my opinion, that the

23 death was probably violent and that it was the result of a politrauma.

24 Q. Now, Doctor, I want to move on to the last body remains we're

25 going to discuss, 1/7.

Page 4723

1 If at this stage I could please -- if the witness could please be

2 shown a document. It's the DNA reports, which is Exhibit 649. If we

3 could please look at page 2 in this document.

4 Now, Doctor, you mentioned this person a little bit earlier, and I

5 want to explore with you what you were discussing. We can see here a DNA

6 report which bears the name "Bozidar Todoric." Can you see that?

7 A. This is 1/4, isn't it?

8 Q. That's correct.

9 If we could move through the document to page 4 so we've -- again,

10 this is another DNA report in respect of Bozidar Todoric, and we can see

11 that here he bears -- the document bears the number "1/7". And then just

12 as a -- to complete this, perhaps if we can turn to the next page in the

13 document.

14 Here we can see the third entry for the same named person, and

15 this is number 1/7A.

16 So according to the documents that we have here, the sample taken

17 from remains 1/4 and 1/7 both match the same person. Could you explain

18 how this has come about or how this may have come about?

19 A. As I've already explained, for body number 1/7, these are samples

20 taken from the body that was in a bag marked as "1/7".

21 1/7A is a sample of the elbow bone, i.e., one part of the body.

22 Since this body had a skull, a head, a sample was also taken from a tooth

23 in order to confirm that the head indeed belonged to the body.

24 However, you can look at my findings and you will see that the

25 body 1/7 is missing long bones of both legs, the long bones of both legs,

Page 4724

1 and the femoral bone sample was sent off because the femoral bone was in

2 the bag marked as "1/4". This speaks in the favour of the fact that the

3 body had been removed from its original burial place, because the legs of

4 that person was in the position 1/4 and the other part of the body was in

5 position 1/7. This is an example of an unfinished business. This is

6 where a body had to be completed for the business to be finished.

7 Through an analysis of both bodies, at the face of it one might

8 have concluded that all the bodies belonged to one person.

9 Q. So this is an unfinished --

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. That last sentence, you're saying, "at the

11 face of it one might have concluded that all the bodies belonged to one

12 person." Did you mean to say something else, ma'am? One person can only

13 have one body.

14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Normally.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Normally.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no.

17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] In French, all body parts, not

18 all the bodies. All body parts belonging to these bodies belong to one

19 person, did they or not?

20 THE INTERPRETER: [Previous translation continues]... rather than

21 bodies.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge. Something else was said in

23 the --

24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter notes that the word "bodies"

25 should be replaced by the word "bones."

Page 4725

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: The interpreter says we must replace the

2 word "bodies" with "bones." Okay. Thank you.

3 Mr. Robson, you may proceed.

4 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm told by my colleague that the

5 translation of the last part of the witness's -- oh, it's correct now,

6 it's correct.

7 Q. So, Doctor, you say that this is an example of unfinished

8 business, this is where a body had to be completed for the business to be

9 finished. By that, do you mean that you didn't have the opportunity to

10 complete the full and proper investigation of these bodies?

11 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, I'll object at this point. I think

12 this has been asked and answered several times, what she means by that.

13 The process, I think it's been asked at least twice here.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.

15 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, it was a question of clarification,

16 because I was trying to find out exactly what the witness meant by that

17 response.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: But this witness is explaining why the bones of 1/7

19 are in 1/4, and the unfinished business here relates to that, not to the

20 process of the entire autopsy, you know, and you're now taking it from

21 here to something else. It's unfinished business in the sense that if you

22 end up with 1/7 and 1/7A only, you haven't found the other body part.

23 Therefore, when you go to 1/4 and you find that, in fact, the unfinished

24 business gets finished in 1/4. That's where you find the body part.

25 MR. ROBSON: Right.

Page 4726

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: It has nothing to do with the process of

2 autopsy-taking.

3 MR. ROBSON: Okay, I'm grateful.

4 Q. Now, Doctor, do you have any knowledge of what happens to the

5 samples once they're taken away from you by ICMP and they conduct their

6 analysis? Do you have any role in that process?

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is a question that has been answered.

8 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm unaware of the answer.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead and ask your question and [indiscernible].

10 MR. ROBSON: Doctor, if I could put the question to you again.

11 Q. Do you have any knowledge of what happens to -- what procedure is

12 carried out once ICMP take the sample from you and conduct their DNA

13 analysis?

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, I understand your question.

15 A. The information that I was supposed to have in that sense was how

16 to take a sample, how to transport it, and how to hand it over to the

17 ICMP. Once the sample enters their laboratory, it's their job.


19 Q. Now, Doctor, this Trial Chamber has heard from a witness who

20 explained that the DNA report that we have on the screen in front of us

21 does not provide official confirmation that body remains have been

22 identified, and that witness explained that in order to obtain official

23 verification, you would need to look at the identification records. Would

24 you agree with that witness's comment? Perhaps I can just explain.

25 What he said about these reports is the one that we're looking

Page 4727

1 at --

2 MS. SARTORIO: Okay, is he quoting now, Your Honour? If he's

3 quoting, that's one thing, but I don't want him to paraphrase what the

4 witness -- previous witness had said. I object if he's going to

5 paraphrase.

6 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I was going to put the quotation.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Say that again.

8 MR. ROBSON: I was going to put the quotation to the witness.


10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe put the quotation to the witness before you

11 solicit an answer.


13 Q. What the witness stated, Doctor, is -- in relation to these DNA

14 reports:

15 "The one that we are looking at is just the working document, so

16 to speak."

17 That is what the witness said about these DNA reports, and he

18 explained that in order to obtain official verification of body remains,

19 he would need to look at the identification records. Would you agree with

20 that witness's comment?

21 A. Well, you've put that a little strangely, but I think I understand

22 what you mean. This finding does not mean that the identification has

23 been complete, completed. Is that what you're asking me?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. So once I received this finding, it's definitive as far as the

Page 4728

1 profession goes, professionalism and so on, because it's confirmation of

2 identity. However, it's just one component, because when I receive a

3 finding like this, when I've got these findings, then the family comes in,

4 and every time, if we have arrived at an identity on the basis of this

5 document, at least that's how I work it, the family takes another look at

6 the body, and if there are any specific features, whether it's an old

7 fracture or a jutting jaw, so that the antemortem and the postmortem

8 match. And sometimes when you're doing that, despite the findings,

9 despite what you found on the body, the family might not accept the body.

10 Q. And did that happen in this case, do you know? Did the family --

11 did that further stage take place?

12 A. I never came into contact with the families. I never met them

13 myself, nor did I do anything with respect to identification, except for

14 these findings, and sent this on to the Republika Srpska Commission. And,

15 actually, I don't think they send the findings to me anymore, because I

16 haven't received any for a long time now. So I think they keep them.

17 Q. And is it --

18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question, Doctor.

19 This procedure takes place afterwards, and this would have

20 continued in Banja Luka, given that the bodies were sent there. The

21 bodies were sent to Banja Luka after this first stage in the procedure; is

22 that right?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It could be. Where the bodies are

24 located, that's where the identification takes place.


Page 4729

1 Q. And is it right that after the final stage takes place and the

2 parties are satisfied that there has been a proper verification of a body,

3 that an identification record is completed? Do you know?

4 A. When I identify bodies in my line of work, when the family accepts

5 the body, then the minutes or a record is kept about the identification,

6 and the signatories to that are the family members, on the one side, and

7 on the other you have the doctor, the cantonal prosecutor, and a

8 representative of the Federal Commission for Missing Persons, and a MUP

9 inspector.

10 Q. And they would all actually sign that document?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And if we look at the DNA reports in front of us, we can see one

13 signature in the bottom left-hand corner. Do you know whose signature

14 that is?

15 A. You mean on the right-hand side or the left?

16 Q. Right-hand.

17 A. Yes, there's just one signature on the right, and that's an ICMP

18 employee.

19 Q. And does that signature indicate anything to you?

20 A. It should indicate that they confirm that these causes -- rather,

21 that these samples belong to that person, just the way in which I signed

22 my finding.

23 Q. We can see that there's no signature from any -- or as far as I

24 can see, there's no signature on this document from any forensic officer

25 or doctor.

Page 4730

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: But, Mr. Robson, this witness is an expert. She's

2 really coming to opine on the autopsy. This thing comes from the ICMP,

3 where she doesn't work. How is she to explain that?

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat what she said?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can explain this. It's not a

6 record on identification; it's the findings of the laboratory.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's true, but the purpose for which you have

8 been called here to come and testify goes beyond this question, even if

9 you can answer it. You may answer if you want to, but I'm just trying to

10 remind counsel your status and what may and may not be asked to you. But

11 counsel for the Prosecution was on her feet, too.

12 Did you want to say something?

13 MS. SARTORIO: No, Your Honour. I wasn't getting the

14 interpretation, but I am now. Thank you.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

16 You may answer, now that you say you want to answer, ma'am. But

17 please bear that in mind, Mr. Robson, with subsequent questions.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not the record of the

19 identification where we all sign, it's just the findings from the

20 laboratory. Just when you have surgical findings, the surgeon just signs,

21 not the family and the patient.

22 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Doctor. I have no further questions.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Robson.

24 Any re-examination?

25 MS. SARTORIO: Just a couple, Your Honour.

Page 4731

1 Re-examination by Ms. Sartorio:

2 Q. While we're on the subject of identification, Doctor, my -- I get

3 the sense there are two -- the word "identification" is being used in

4 different ways in terms of your testimony. Do you have any reason to

5 doubt that the DNA reports -- the accuracy of the DNA reports where they

6 identify the owner of the particular bones from which the DNA samples were

7 taken?

8 A. The DNA findings are the ultimate, end findings.

9 Q. Thank you. And when you talk about the -- all the remaining tasks

10 that have to do with identification, are you referring to what the formal

11 steps are that are taken with regard to the federation commission, when

12 they come to the conclusion with regard to identification of bodies; is

13 that what you are talking about here today?

14 A. What I'm talking about is the process for identification which we

15 conduct after exhumation, and that's always a set procedure. When we

16 receive the DNA analysis, which we consider to be a valid finding, since

17 the family -- and they're mostly people who don't understand what DNA

18 means at all and that you can identify someone on the basis of something

19 taken from bones, they still look for something they can relate to on the

20 bones, something familiar to them. And if you can find a detail which can

21 confirm what they know or think they know, then, in human terms, it's

22 more -- it's easier for them to accept identification.

23 Q. Okay, thank you. One other question.

24 Can you tell us, with regard to the bodies 1/1 through 1/7, excuse

25 me, whether any -- and I do believe you refer to this in your report, that

Page 4732

1 some of the bodies were bound, their hands, their arms or legs were

2 bound. Can you tell me how many of those bodies?

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.

4 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, this question does not touch upon any

5 issues discussed during cross-examination.

6 MS. SARTORIO: It does, Your Honour, because the cross-examination

7 was -- seemed to be steering the witness -- or not "steering the witness,"

8 but presenting an issue where the bones were just thrown into a grave, and

9 I think that the -- I want to re-query the witness on -- that's not

10 exactly what it -- the picture should be, that there were some intact,

11 major portions of the body. And that's clear from her report, anyway.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then why do you want to rehash it?

13 MS. SARTORIO: Because I want to give the witness the opportunity

14 to explain it clearly on the record rather than just submit the report. I

15 mean, I just think it -- it --

16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Sartorio, the issue you are raising seems to

17 be one of the time that elapsed between the first burial and the removal,

18 because what you're implying is that if the bodies were removed while they

19 were still held together by skin and tissue, then they would be found in

20 the second grave, the skeleton would be found in the second grave in good

21 order, so to say, where the right bones would lie next to the right

22 bones.

23 If, however, the body had become a skeleton before it was removed

24 the second time, then the bones would have been found in disorder. That's

25 the implication. But why is this relevant?

Page 4733

1 MS. SARTORIO: It's -- well, I would argue that it's not relevant

2 whether there was a secondary grave, but I think that the Defence has

3 raised it, and I feel the need to address it.

4 Okay, I have no further questions, then.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

6 Judge?

7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have no questions, thank you.


9 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, thanks.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a few question from me, Doctor.

11 Questioned by the Court:

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: With respect to skeleton 1/7, you say that that

13 skeleton, in your report, still had a head. Do I read your report

14 correctly?

15 A. Yes, that one body was a body with a head.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: And yet you attribute death to severance of the

17 head? Do I still read your report correctly there?

18 A. Yes, you have understood what body we're dealing with and what the

19 cause of death was. But since in this report you have a section where it

20 says that the lower part of the body -- of the third cervical vertebra was

21 of a smooth cut surface, that's why I'm saying this. When it

22 says "severance of the body from the head," I said that because of the

23 changes found on the vertebrae, when I stated my views on the probable

24 cause of death, not only because the skull was in a different place to the

25 body.

Page 4734

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me try and find out if I understand you

2 clearly.

3 The body -- the head was still attached to the body, but just the

4 vertebra was severed; is that what you are saying or am I misunderstanding

5 you?

6 A. The head was in continuity of the body. You have the body, and it

7 continues on to the head. In between were these changes on the vertebrae

8 that we found.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you. That clears me there.

10 Then with --

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on a second. Sorry.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead.

13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I thought you also said that the head had been

14 found in a different place in the grave, in a plastic bag.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Not 1/ 7.


17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Still staying with the body of number 7, are you

18 able to explain the dental status that you mention there? You have

19 mentioned figures there, teeth missing during life, 36, 46; teeth missing

20 after death, 11, 12, 21, 35, 37, 42." What do these figures mean?

21 A. When you look at the tooth status according to the chart you have,

22 then these are teeth in the upper jaw. They range from 1 to 18 on the

23 right side, and on the left side from 21 to 28. If you look at the lower

24 jaw, they range from 31 to 38, because you have eight teeth to half a jaw,

25 and then from 41 to 48 on the other side of the lower jaw, of course.

Page 4735

1 Now, on the skeleton you can differentiate whether a tooth went

2 missing during the person's lifetime, while he was still alive, so the

3 person was missing that tooth from before. On the basis of what the tooth

4 ridges looked like, if you look at the tooth ridges --

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: But what I'm trying to find out by these numbers,

6 do these numbers represent the number of teeth? What do they represent?

7 A. The number of the tooth. Eleven is the first sequitur on the

8 right-hand side in the upper jaw, so the tooth number.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me tell you why I'm asking the question so that

10 you can clear me.

11 My primary school education told me that an adult person has 32

12 teeth, and now these numbers, they go beyond 32. You know, you've got a

13 36, 46, 37, 42. That's what confuses me, and that is why I'm asking you

14 what these numbers represent.

15 A. If you add them up, from 1 to 18 is eight [as interpreted]. From

16 27 to 28 [as interpreted] is eight. Sixteen, upper jaw. And from 31 to

17 38, eight, from 41 to 48, eight, so eight plus eight's 16 for the lower

18 jaw. So 16 on top, 16 on the bottom jaw makes 32. You were taught

19 correctly.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hope somebody understands all this. I don't. I

21 must be very slow on the uptake.

22 But why do you use, what is that, 27 to 28, 1 to 18? What is this

23 1 to 18?

24 A. I have an example of the diagram here. If I were to write the

25 first sequitur or third pre-molar or fourth molar, then my findings would

Page 4736

1 be over a large number of pages.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine.

3 My last question to you: Am I right to say during

4 evidence-in-chief you explained the difference in the use within your

5 report of the word "damage" and "injury"?

6 A. When I speak about damage, when I say "damage," the word itself

7 says that something has been damaged, that there is damage, whether

8 through the effects of climatic elements, or the place, the location, so

9 through unintentional acts you get damage. When I say "injuries"

10 or "wounds," "injuries," then injuries are injuries, whether you inflict

11 them upon yourself or they are inflicted upon you by others.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Doctor. I just wanted to make

13 sure that I understood you clearly on that last point.

14 That's all I wanted to ask.

15 Any questions arising, Madam Sartorio?

16 MS. SARTORIO: No, Your Honour, thank you.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.

18 MR. ROBSON: No, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: You don't even want to clear up 1 to 18 and --

20 MR. ROBSON: No, thank you.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

22 Doctor, thank you so much. This brings us to the conclusion of

23 your testimony for now. Let me remind -- I don't know --

24 MS. SARTORIO: We'll be filing a motion tomorrow, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you will discuss that with the witness, I don't

Page 4737

1 have to mention it?

2 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. Well, I can't talk to her if she's coming

3 back.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon. Do I then have to remind her?

5 MS. SARTORIO: I would appreciate that, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Doctor, you realise that you were not asked

7 questions about teeth and about -- except for what I've just asked you,

8 and about the eighth body. That is because that part of your report has

9 not been -- has only just been found, and not everybody had seen it. So

10 you probably will be approached to come back, to come and testify on that

11 part sometime. Okay?

12 MS. SARTORIO: And the skulls.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh, I beg your pardon, and, yes, that's why I said

14 the teeth. The skulls, actually, the skulls. So you will be called to

15 come back to testify on those. Unfortunately, it happened that way. We

16 didn't want it to happen that way, and I know it disturbs you in your own

17 busy schedule, but please, I hope you understand. Okay?

18 So for now, this brings us to the conclusion of your testimony.

19 You are excused. You may go back home now, and please travel safely, but

20 do expect that you may be called or will be called again.

21 Okay? Thank you, Doctor.

22 [The witness stands down]

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. That brings us to the end of the day.

24 We're sitting tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning in Courtroom I.

25 Okay, Courtroom I tomorrow morning.

Page 4738

1 Court adjourned.

2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.55 p.m.,

3 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 30th day of

4 October, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.