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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 Then before you call her, there's just a small other housekeeping
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
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.
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.
8 WITNESS: SABIHA SILAJDZIC-BRKIC
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
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
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
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
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
1 testify about were exhumed?
2 THE WITNESS: No.
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.
7 MS. SARTORIO:
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
1 the bodies until representatives of both committees for missing persons
2 were present, our federal commission and the commission of Republika
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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 --
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
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, yes, it seems as if it's Madam Vidovic's
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
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.
5 MS. 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.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
20 MS. SARTORIO: So, yes.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just the two pages?
22 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
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.
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.
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.
15 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
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.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
25 MS. SARTORIO: And I'm there at this point. Okay.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
5 MS. SARTORIO:
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.
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
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
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
24 Q. Sure, of course.
25 A. In my findings, when describing the body 1/8, fragments of the
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
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."
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
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
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
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.
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].
21 MS. SARTORIO:
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
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.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, but where do you get Pejic from? You're
2 talking about a report.
3 MS. SARTORIO: Okay.
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 --
19 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
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.
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?
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
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
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
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
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
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
1 lacking. The lower edge and lower adjacent edge has impairments to the
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 A. I believe that this should have been the other way around. I
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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?
18 MR. ROBSON:
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
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I've seen it, thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say that, I read it.
3 MR. ROBSON:
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
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.
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,
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."
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
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
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
1 MR. ROBSON:
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
9 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I note the time.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. We take a break and come back at quarter to
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.
16 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.
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
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
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
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.
15 MR. ROBSON:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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?
12 MR. ROBSON:
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
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
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
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.
8 MR. ROBSON:
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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."
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
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.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: It has nothing to do with the process of
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
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.
18 MR. ROBSON:
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
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
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.
9 MS. SARTORIO: Okay.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe put the quotation to the witness before you
11 solicit an answer.
12 MR. ROBSON:
13 Q. What the witness stated, Doctor, is -- in relation to these DNA
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
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.
25 MR. ROBSON:
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have no questions, thank you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Judge?
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
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
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me try and find out if I understand you
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
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.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry.
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.
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
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
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
1 have to mention it?
2 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. Well, I can't talk to her if she's coming
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.
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.