1 Thursday, 25 March 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please read the affirmation that's shown
9 to you now.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
11 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please sit down.
13 Mr. Djordjevic has some questions for you.
14 Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.
15 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 WITNESS: ZORAN STANKOVIC
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Examination by Mr. Djordjevic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning. Would you please give us your
21 A. My name is Zoran Stankovic.
22 Q. Tell us, please, your date and place of birth.
23 A. I was born on the 9th of November, 1954, in the village of
24 Tegoviste of Vladicin Han municipality.
25 Q. Tell us, what is your occupation?
1 A. I'm a -- I'm a specialist in forensic medicine, and I work in the
2 field of forensic medicine and I teach at the medical school.
3 Q. Tell us about your current work status.
4 A. I'm now vice dean at the academy in Novi Sad, and I also teach at
5 the dental school in Belgrade
6 Q. All right. To avoid me putting a lot of questions to you, would
7 you please freely describe your education and your career up-to-date.
8 A. Upon completing my elementary school or high school and medical
9 school at the university, I first served my military service as a
10 resident physician, following which I became an active member of the
11 Yugoslav People's Army. I first served in the rank of lieutenant, I
12 served in Nis
13 Kosovo. After that I was given a residency training in the field of
14 forensic medicine in Belgrade
16 becoming specialist. As an officer of the medical corps I reached the
17 rank of major-general, and I headed the highest medical institution
18 within the JNA and the Yugoslav Army after that, currently the Army of
20 for a period of six months in the state union of Serbia and Montenegro
21 or rather, I remained in that position for a year and a half.
22 What I can say is that I defended my doctoral thesis at the
23 military medical academy, and my topic was autopsy of corpses in war
24 conditions, and I examined in the course of that 1.360 corpses using 20
25 variables, and I wrote doctoral thesis on that topic of about 860 pages.
1 What is important in my work and what I want to highlight is that from
2 the beginning of armed conflict in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
3 I worked as a volunteer performing autopsies on corpses in the theatre of
4 war. And in the course of that, I performed autopsies on about 5.000
5 corpses. I worked on mass graves in the territory of the entire former
7 I performed autopsy on all the victims in Vukovar. I headed the medical
8 team working there. And as new mass graves were uncovered and as the
9 number of victims grew, I worked more and more. In Croatia, in addition
10 to Vukovar, I also worked in Gospic, in Tenja, in Binaj near Osijek
11 also worked in Knin, in Oranica [phoen], and some other places. As for
13 Srebrenica, Vlasenica, Sarajevo
14 locations. I also worked in Herzegovina
15 and so on.
16 During my work there I was also a member of the federal committee
17 on gathering evidence on violations of international humanitarian law
18 up -- this was starting from 1993 and from 2002 until 2004 I served as
19 chairman of that committee. While performing that work I met frequently
20 with the representatives of the ICTY. My first meeting with them was in
21 1992 and in 1993 with the first chairman of the committee for war crimes,
22 Carsten Hoffman. I also met Cherif Bassiouni, Richard Goldstone, Louise
23 Arbour, and Carla del Ponte. I met with them both here in The Hague
24 in Belgrade
25 and activities in this field. I was also an invited speaker in the
1 parliaments of Great Britain and parliament of Ukraine
2 various other institutions in London
3 invited to come and give lectures in The Hague, Amsterdam
4 and this has been part of my work until today.
5 Q. Thank you very much for this exhaustive answer, Doctor. I have
6 to say that the Defence following the latest Court order did some
7 corrections on the expert report of Dr. Stankovic, which is entitled:
8 "Findings and opinion of the medical examiners who performed the
9 autopsies of the bodies found in Kosovo and Metohija and elsewhere," and
10 the work of experts who took part in the forensic examination of the
11 sites where the bodies were found. In the case IT-05-87/1-T, Prosecutor
12 versus Vlastimir Djordjevic, this redacted document is marked as
14 Now, please tell me, did you write this report, and is this your
15 expert witness report?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] This redacted version of your
18 report will be offered to be admitted into evidence, and I assume that
19 that will be done after you complete your testimony. But if the Chamber
20 considers that this redacted report can be admitted into evidence
21 immediately, now, then I will make my suggestion accordingly to the
23 JUDGE PARKER: Of course we would contemplate, Mr. Djordjevic, is
24 that if the doctor confirms the report is his subject to the deletion of
25 the two or three passages we've identified because there's been no
1 factual foundation for those parts in the evidence before us, we would
2 suggest you put the report to the doctor and we will receive it.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] That was the intention of the
4 Defence. Thank you, Your Honour.
5 We will be first examining Exhibit P1167, so I will ask to see
6 page 9 of this exhibit, page 9 in B/C/S and page 10 in English. As far
7 as I can he see, this is in German. We need P1167, page 10 in the
8 English version. Do we have the German version -- all right. Now this
9 is good.
10 Q. Professor, P1167 is a report by experts from Austria who examined
11 Kacanik and Kotlina sites in Kosovo. We also know, however, that experts
12 from Switzerland
13 this part of the report. First of all, tell us whether you are familiar
14 with what is stated here; and if so, would you please give us your
15 comment on the methodology of work of the Swiss experts.
16 A. As you know, all work, especially work of specialists, has an
17 appropriate methodology and has rules that need to be followed in the
18 course of that work. In this particular case there are differences in
19 the approach when processing the corpses from the point of view of
20 forensic medicine. However, there are different schools. There's
21 English school, American school of thought, Russian school of thought,
22 and they're not contradictory. But when it comes to autopsying corpses,
23 bodies need to be examined in a generally accepted way, which is to say
24 that the written record of that autopsy needs to contain certain elements
25 such as height, muscular development, development of the skeleton. The
1 body needs to be described, its appearance, eyes, hair, teeth, and so on.
2 Following that, the written record needs to reflect the injuries that are
3 on the body as well as any peculiar elements that can be used for
4 identification, such as scars, moles, and so on. Following that, they
5 need to examine all cavities, all body cavities, and then they need to
6 describe clothing, damage, any biological traces on the clothing. And
7 then if autopsy is performed they also need to describe the findings of
8 the internal examination. Then needs to follow a conclusion on the cause
9 of death, was it a natural or violent death, was it an accident, suicide
10 or murder. Then is the death linked to the injuries found on the bodies.
11 Then the injuries need to be described, giving some ideas as to what
12 caused those injuries, what kind of object. And then they need to make a
13 conclusion in that written finding, make photographs. Photographs need
14 to reflect all elements, clothing, body, all injuries need to be
15 photographed so that, as in this case, somebody could perform an
16 additional analysis and give their opinion on the first autopsy
18 What we can see in this report of Austrian experts is that these
19 autopsy records, written records, cannot provide almost any kind of
20 information to the Court. If we take the report for corpse number 2,
21 Izija Loku it says there when it comes to injuries the following:
22 "Traces caused by explosion and fire were found on the body.
23 Skull was completely smashed."
24 And then they finish by saying:
25 "The traces on the body caused by explosion could have been
1 caused during life or after death of the victim."
2 I don't think that anybody can make any sort of a valid
3 conclusion based on this meager information contained in this report.
4 When speaking of mass graves that I worked on, I worked on them during
5 combat operations at the front line between the two warring sides. But
6 when somebody works for an institution such as the ICTY and has all the
7 logistical support, that is to say both adequate funding, adequate
8 personnel, and technical equipment needed, then it is unacceptable for
9 that person to provide such a report which is superficial and to treat an
10 autopsy of a body in such a superficial manner.
11 Let me add one more thing. When one makes an analysis, say in
12 the case of Izijah Loku, all we can -- all we have is this paper about
13 his autopsy, which contains only two sentences about the injuries and
14 doesn't even give an opinion as to whether these injuries were inflicted
15 during life or after death of the person.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 12 of this
18 document in B/C/S, and let's have page 12 in English as well. We might
19 need to see page 13 also at some point.
20 Q. We see autopsy report for corpse number 4, Kuqi Xhemajl. Could
21 you please comment on this report.
22 A. Autopsy report and findings contained therein again are
23 contradictory. In the first part of the report it says that:
24 "To the right of the spine on the back there was one injury
25 visible, most likely caused by a fire-arm."
1 And then the same doctor, Markwalder, concludes that there were
2 traces of explosion and fire-arm and that superficial wounds could be
3 seen on the back. So on one hand they're saying that this was a fire-arm
4 injury, and on the other hand they're claiming that this was an injury
5 caused by an explosion. From the point of view of forensic medicine,
6 that is completely unacceptable, and it is up to the Trial Chamber to
7 evaluate this.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now go back to page 7
10 in B/C/S and also page 7 in English.
11 Q. There is a description of traces found at the scene of crime in
12 Rastani and traces of projectiles and so on and so forth. What are the
13 obligations of your profession vis-a-vis this type of information? What
14 is this all about, as a matter of fact?
15 A. During my time as today in Serbia there was a military term, you
16 would be mobilised, and in such circumstances certain army members could
17 also get killed. When such cases occurred, then an investigating judge
18 of the military court would call in a forensic medical expert to form
19 part of the team. His or her obligation was during all investigative
20 measures to carry out the registering of all biological traces at the
21 scene of crime or where the body was found and its environs. In such
22 circumstances, my role was that after, say, a spent cartridge was found
23 or an instrument for which it is believed was used to cause death, my
24 task was to investigate it, describe the scene, and seal the object in
25 question, to send it to the lab which would then examine it for any other
1 further traces.
2 On page 7 it is stated that the incline on which the event took
3 place is thickly overgrown. There were many conifer trees there. In
4 such circumstances those who were in attendance of the scene had to have
5 examined the foliage and the leaves for any blood traces, tissue traces,
6 or other biological traces, for example, parts of bones or hair. Since
7 in such locations when there is -- when bullets are used and fire-arms,
8 then such traces are frequently found. This, however, was not described,
9 which may mean that there may have been some traces or there may not have
10 been some traces. In any case, it is clear that they did not register
11 any traces of projectile impact resulting from this description, and they
12 didn't find any biological traces. That's why I made this conclusion.
13 Q. So what was the conclusion?
14 A. The conclusion I could provide from my forensic medical point of
15 view without going into the realm of the judiciary, my conclusion would
16 be that there were no executions at such a location or this location.
17 Q. Thank you. On the same page there is a description which states
18 that clothes covered in soot were found close to the well shaft. Can you
19 tell us anything more about such traces, how could they be in such a
20 location and can that serve as an indication to show that the bodies had
21 previously been burned?
22 A. The bodies were burned there. In -- had the bodies been burned
23 there, apart from soot traces, we would have found carbonised part of
24 human bodies. They were not, however, and the conclusion is that the
25 bodies were brought in from another location and then thrown down the
1 well shaft. In the process of the bodies being moved, given that there
2 were traces of flames visible on the bodies, the clothing particles
3 referred to fell off the bodies and some of them ended up close to the
4 well shaft.
5 Q. Thank you. On page 7 we can speak of certain material traces of
6 biological origin and their contamination or destruction. However, we
7 can see the same thing on page 16, which is 17 in the B/C/S -- actually,
8 it's the same page in the English. Before providing your answer I would
9 just kindly wait for page 16 in the B/C/S and 17 in English. I would
10 like to hear some of your observations concerning what I have just said
11 and what we can see on the screen.
12 A. As I've already stated, an investigation must be carried out
13 according to certain procedure prescribed by the law. In our country it
14 is the Law on Criminal Procedure. The person in charge of the
15 investigation is an investigating judge. Under the law in Serbia
16 although in comparison to some other countries' legislations, we he will
17 also see certain amendments to that law. It seems that the villagers,
18 without the presence of any competent authorities, began to clear those
19 wells and extract material from it, thus destroying important evidence.
20 They did this before the investigating team arrived, which is what we can
21 see on page 7. Although later on the team was there, they still
22 continued doing this by themselves without any monitoring or objections
23 by the investigating team. It is clear that it took place on the 11th of
24 September, 1999, at 10.00. From our point of view, this is unacceptable.
25 Q. Thank you. My next question is dealt with on pages --
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] By the Chamber's leave, and I
2 wanted to have something on the record, I wanted to say as follows, also
3 for ease of reference for my Prosecution colleagues. At page 8 in the
4 B/C/S and English and then page 101 and 102 in the B/C/S and page 75 and
5 76 in the English as well as at page 106 in the B/C/S, which is page 80
6 in the English, there is mention made of a number of registered fire-arm
7 wounds as well as a number of cartridges found at the location. Could we
8 please see page 8 of the document in the B/C/S and 8 in the English to
9 illustrate that.
10 Q. Everything I've discussed so far is on the other pages I referred
11 to and is also contained on page 8. Could you please comment.
12 A. When one looks at all fire-arm wounds described on the bodies, it
13 seems that all those bodies which were pulled out of the well or exhumed,
14 there were 26 fire-arm wounds described in total on those bodies. One
15 needs to bear in mind that most of the bodies were destroyed and many
16 parts missing. This makes me conclude that a possible number of fire-arm
17 wounds or gun-shot wounds were far higher, although only 12 cartridges
18 were found. In addition to that, in the upper well shaft ten cartridges
19 were found, which when analysed by ballistic experts were found to have
20 been fired from a single fire-arm, meaning that there was a single person
21 firing those shots. And the number of registered gun-shot wounds far
22 exceeds that figure by 14. This is another proof, in my view, that those
23 gun-shot wounds were caused or inflicted in a different location other
24 than the location where the bodies were found.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we go to page 9 in both
2 versions. For ease of reference I also wanted to refer to page 34 in the
3 B/C/S and 35 in the English as well as page 35 in the B/C/S and page 36
4 in the English and page 36 in the B/C/S and page 37 in the English.
5 Q. I wanted to hear your opinion, Professor, concerning the position
6 of the mortal remains found in the well. In your expert report, and as
7 we can see from these descriptions, that there were different levels at
8 which the mortal remains were found.
9 A. During the exhumation process the people involved, the experts,
10 that is, they also described at which depth they found the body parts.
11 It seems that on the surface only small body parts were found, such as
12 pieces of bones and tissue as well as partially carbonised items of --
13 pieces of clothing. The same type of traces was found in the bottom-most
14 layer, which indicates that the bodies and the remains were found in
15 other locations, and as they were found they were thrown in the well.
16 Had the bodies been thrown in first and then explosives later, then on
17 the surface level we would have had these small body particles, whereas
18 in the lower levels we would still have larger parts and bodies better
19 preserved than described here. If we look at this we also have small
20 particles on the surface and at the bottom of the well as well as in
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction:
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And in between we have a different
24 situation which does not prove the explosion thesis.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go to page 13 in
1 the B/C/S and in the English. The same topic is covered on page 14 in
2 both versions, as well as page 23 in the B/C/S and 23 in the English.
3 Then page 24 in the B/C/S and 24 in the English.
4 Q. My first question has to do with the location of explosive or
5 blast injuries on the corpse number 5 described here. This is page 13 in
6 both versions as well as 14. Could I please have your comment concerning
7 these injuries on the corpse number 5.
8 A. In the description of the position of the body when found during
9 the exhumation process by the experts, it is stated that the body was
10 lying on its stomach which means that that is how it was put inside the
11 well. Next we have a description stating that the centre of the
12 explosion took place in the abdominal region. What does it mean? If the
13 body had been thrown into the well and lying on its stomach against the
14 soil, and then after that there was an explosive device inserted into the
15 well, be it a hand-grenade, an explosive, then it would have been
16 realistic to expect that such blast injuries would be found on the back,
17 not in the abdominal region because the explosion could not have
18 destroyed the abdominal region since the abdominal region was lying flat
19 on the ground and thus protected. Therefore, that injury could not have
20 been caused when the body was already in the well. The same goes for
21 bodies number 12, for example, which is also lying on its stomach and the
22 blast injuries are on the front of the thoracic region. Then body number
23 13 lying on the stomach, and the blast injury was in the left armpit.
24 This is another proof that these blast injuries did not occur in the well
25 but elsewhere.
1 Q. Thank you. I have already provided all the references, so I
2 won't go through them again. My next question is this: What does the
3 intensity of injuries in bodies number 5, 6, 8, and 9, as well as 10 and
4 21 indicate to you in relation to the number of metal fragments found in
5 the well?
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The reference is page 106.
7 Could it be placed on the monitor, as well as page 80 in the English.
8 106 in the B/C/S and 80 in the English. Let us wait for that first.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The bodies you referred to had
10 extensive destructive injuries caused by mines or explosives. For
11 example, corpse number 5 only had the torso and the arms, whereas the
12 lower extremities are completely missing. Body number 6 is missing both
13 legs. Body number 8 has most of it -- of the body missing. In the well,
14 however, only 16 metal fragments were found. Having in mind that the
15 expert teams had metal detecters and that they extracted all those 16
16 metal fragments from the soil, one can say with a large degree of
17 certainty that such a small number of metal fragments disproves the
18 thesis that these destructive injuries were caused in the well.
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we please have
20 page 16 in the B/C/S as well as in the English version.
21 Q. This has to do with item 10 of your report. This has to do with
22 the possible mechanisms of skull fractures in the corpses found in the
23 well. The first reference, page 16 refers to corpse number 7, then we
24 have corpse number 16 which is page 29 in both versions, however, we
25 don't need to see that. Please just provide us with your general answer
1 concerning these two examples.
2 A. During the autopsy of this body only one injury mechanism was
3 concerned -- was explained concerning the skull. It is stated that the
4 skull had been fractured by a blunt instrument. However, having in mind
5 the type of soil in which there was all -- there were also rocks and that
6 there were other bodies in the well, one cannot exclude the possibility
7 that after such a fall - and we know that the well was between 8 and 10
8 metres deep - that the bodies when they fell from such a height hit a
9 hard, blunt surface which contained rocks or other solid body parts such
10 as the skull of another body or the knee. It is possible that in such
11 cases too there are injuries to the skull bones. Therefore, one must not
12 exclude that possibility either as a possible mechanism of injuries.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] For the transcript I think I
15 said that the corpse number 16 is on page 29 in the B/C/S and English
16 page 26. Page 16 in the B/C/S and in English.
17 Q. We have descriptions of body parts of a single corpse it seems
18 which were found at different depths. The different depths -- well, you
19 have provided us with your conclusion when you said that there was a
20 possibility that the bodies were brought from elsewhere. However, when
21 discussing these depths you said that the corpses were practically not
22 extracted but exhumed from the wells, which indicates that the wells were
23 filled up. Can you comment briefly on the location where those wells
24 were. Would one usually expect to find such wells in such a location?
25 A. That question goes outside of the scope of my work. I can give
1 you an answer as a person who grew up in a rural area.
2 Q. In that case, I withdraw my question. I will not require you to
4 Now, tell me, please, what does the finding of gun-shot and
5 penetrating wounds in body number 11 indicate?
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] We need page 21 in the B/C/S and
7 page 22 in the English.
8 Q. But we can see the same material on the following two pages, 22
9 in B/C/S and 23 in English.
10 A. My experience in finding in one body various injuries which were
11 inflicted with different objects such as gun-shot wounds and injuries
12 from mines and explosives, then that indicates that such injuries could
13 have been inflicted and most likely were inflicted during armed conflict
14 between warring sides.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Page 26 in B/C/S and page 27 in
17 English, the same document. Could we see it on the screen, please.
18 Q. Doctor, we're dealing now with body number 14 here. It says here
19 that there was a bandage on the right leg. Can you comment on that?
20 A. Well, the presence of a bandage on the right leg indicates that
21 the injury was inflicted before the death came about and that the injury
22 was inflicted at another location and that first aid was provided by
23 putting a bandage on the injured part.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 30 in
1 B/C/S and 31 in English. The reference for my question can be found on
2 the following pages too, 31 and 32.
3 Q. If the workers performing autopsy had metal detecters - and we
4 know that they did have them - could they have established whether the
5 injuries on, say, corpse number 19 were inflicted by explosive devices or
6 by conventional fire-arms?
7 A. In my objections to the work of the Austrian team I stated that
8 some things were not clear to me. In this particular case, what I find
9 objectionable is that despite having metal detecter the expert team could
10 not establish whether gun-shot wounds on the front part of the abdomen
11 were a result of mines and explosives or were a result from projectiles
12 fired by -- from fire-arms. It is also not clear to me, despite the fact
13 that the body was severely decomposed, it also surprises me that they
14 couldn't establish whether the injuries were inflicted during the life or
15 after death. And this is what makes the conclusion so difficult. If the
16 injuries were inflicted by gun-shot firing, then they could be either
17 penetrating wounds or some other kinds of wounds; whereas, if they were
18 inflicted by explosives then most likely fragments would be still found
19 in the body. Metal detecter, if it is properly used, could dispel this
20 dilemma. And this is why I think that this finding is objectionable,
21 unacceptable, and it reflects a very superficial attitude toward work.
22 Q. Professor, we as laymen are also interested in learning the
23 following. Had you been there and had you had a metal detecter, how
24 would you have established whether injuries were caused by mines and
25 explosives and shrapnels or by fire-arms? How would that look in
1 practice, your work?
2 A. Well, what you do is you take a knife, you open up abdominal
3 cavity, and then by palpitation and by establishing damage to organs
4 within the abdominal cavity - and in this case we can see that liver was
5 damaged and also heart - we would by this physical examination look for
6 shrapnel. And according to our Law on Criminal Procedure, it is also the
7 duty of a person performing autopsy when finding any shrapnel or any
8 particles of mines and explosive to extract them and to turn them over
9 together with the body remains and any written findings and so on.
10 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we now see
11 page 34 of this document in B/C/S and also page 34 in English. The
12 relevant English text can be found also on page 35. We are now dealing
13 with corpse number 22.
14 Q. Professor, we can see the findings of your colleagues from the
15 Austrian team, and I would like to hear your opinion about their
17 A. I can say that I can accept the part of the finding which says
18 that in the windpipe no soot particles were found, that is to say traces
19 of gun-shots while people were still alive. That means that while they
20 were still alive they didn't breathe in any fumes. That is to say that
21 the gun-shot wounds were inflicted after death.
22 Q. After death. All right.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see page 32 and 33 in
24 B/C/S -- or rather, just 32 on the monitor, please. And this same page
25 in English. The relevant material can also be found on the following
2 Q. This is corpse number 20. Again we see the conclusion -- the
3 finding by your colleagues about the object that inflicted injuries. Can
4 you comment on this, please.
5 A. In the description of injuries on corpse number 20, the autopsy
6 experts stated that on the back there were several shrapnel wounds and
7 that they also found an injury caused by a sharp object, a knife wound,
8 on the left side of the neck. Examination established that this injury
9 did not damage any arteries. Sometimes, given that shrapnel has uneven
10 surface, that it is made out of steel, and that it is also sharp,
11 injuries caused by shrapnel can resemble knife wounds, knife injuries.
12 Therefore, given the appearance and description of this wound, I believe
13 that most likely this injury was also caused by one of the shrapnels
14 because if somebody had wanted to torture this victim they wouldn't have
15 stopped at just one knife stab. This is the experience I have after
16 having performed all those autopsies. So they wouldn't have stopped at
17 just one knife stab that didn't damage any arteries. It is just
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next page is 39 in B/C/S and
21 the same page in English, and the relevant reference in English can also
22 be found on page 40.
23 Q. This is corpse number 25, Professor. Can I hear your comment,
24 please, regarding this body.
25 A. I have to say that in cases where there are very few injuries on
1 the body, as is the case of corpse of Zymer Loku, and when you see that
2 this is an elderly person, this particular victim was born in 1932, and
3 if you have an injury which in order to have caused the death needed to
4 be described in more elaborate terms, then one can conclude that autopsy
5 experts found only one penetrating gun-shot wound on the right leg, on
6 the right calf. But they did not describe whether any major arteries or
7 whether any major blood vessels were damaged as a result of that wound.
8 They say that the wound was badly bandaged, as a result of which the
9 person bled to death. So such a conclusion could not be made on the
10 basis of what is written in this written report.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see page 38 in B/C/S,
13 or rather, there's parts that's relevant on page 39 too. And could we
14 see 39 in English.
15 Q. Professor, this is body number 24. Could you comment on this as
16 well, please.
17 A. This is the corpse of Idriz Kuqi, corpse number 24. It says:
18 "On the right side of the torso there is an entry wound in the
19 right side. The fourth right rib was shot through at the junction with
20 the breast bone. The right lung was also shot through. These gun-shot
21 injuries were also the cause of death."
22 Studying this material and also having some witness statements at
23 my disposal, I was able to observe that in the statement of a person in
24 the witness statement --
25 Q. Just a minute, we will get to that later.
1 A. Yes, this is what they state as cause of death, and I do not
2 challenge this, that it was a gun-shot wound in the right of the thorax
3 and that that caused the death of this person.
4 Q. Thank you. Doctor, when it comes to the witness who speaks of
5 these persons under the numbers that we have mentioned, we have the
6 witness statement of Loku Hazbi dated 4th of June, 1999. Could we now
7 see his statement which is P652 --
8 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I see that my learned friend is
9 ready to say something, so I will pause.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that.
11 Yes, Ms. Kravetz.
12 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, this witness
13 is being called as an expert. I understand that the scope of his
14 testimony should be limited to his report. His report does not refer to
15 the witness statement which -- of Hazbi Loku which my learned colleague
16 wants to show to him, and I do not think that there is a basis given that
17 he's been called as an expert witness for him to be commenting on witness
18 statements that he did not directly address within his report.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask to be
21 allowed to put the question and then the Court can decide whether my
22 question should be allowed or not. My question has to do with this
23 witness's comment on the cause of death of these people, and this is
24 something that Witness Hazbi Loku speaks of in his statement, and this is
25 why I wanted to put the question. And this is my question:
1 Q. If we show this document, page 5 --
2 JUDGE PARKER: Please pause, Mr. Djordjevic.
3 Anything further, Ms. Kravetz?
4 MS. KRAVETZ: Well, I don't want to repeat myself, Your Honour --
5 JUDGE PARKER: Okay. Nothing further.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE PARKER: Please proceed, Mr. Djordjevic.
8 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see the statement of
9 witness Exhibit P652, page 5 in B/C/S and page 5, end of second paragraph
10 from the top in English.
11 Q. This witness in his statement says that body number 24, which is
12 the late Idriz that we spoke of earlier, died as a result of a gun-shot
13 wound at the back of his head. There was a small wound at the back of
14 his head and the front of the face was completely blown away and it came
15 from close range.
16 A. There is no description of the injury in the back of the head,
17 nor any head injuries. All they describe is that on the right side of
18 the torso there is a gun-shot wound, an entry wound, that caused the
19 death, and nothing else that is relevant is described.
20 Q. Thank you. That's enough.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 6 of that
22 same document and then in English it's the same page, middle of the third
23 paragraph. That's right.
24 Q. Body 25, corpse 25. It says: On the body of Zymer Loku, they
25 saw injuries in the chest area and that the right leg at knee height was
1 almost cut off. Are there any -- is there any correlation between what
2 is stated here and what was actually found on that body, body 25?
3 A. All they described on corpse number 25 is the gun-shot wound in
4 the area of the right leg. No injuries in the chest area are described,
5 nor do they say anything about the right leg being cut off under the
6 right knee.
7 Q. To go back to corpse number 24, can you tell us anything about
8 the range from which body 24 was shot? Was it shot from close range, in
9 the back of the head? You said that there was nothing indicating that,
10 but tell us something about the range from which the shot was fired.
11 A. Based on the description of the injury in the area of the
12 chest - and again, nothing is described about injuries on the
13 head - based just on what is described I can't say anything about the
14 range from which a shot was fired.
15 Q. Thank you. Given what we talked about after my last question,
16 but to refer back to P1167, please tell me, how do you explain that in
17 the well shaft they found completely well preserved projectiles or parts
18 of projectiles?
19 A. The fact that such projectiles were found indicates that they
20 were fired from hand-held weapons from a long range. And when it comes
21 to parts of projectiles, then that could indicate that the projectile
22 first passed through an obstacle, a firm obstacle, before it fell apart,
23 disintegrated, and broke into smaller particles. That indicates that
24 these persons received these gun-shot wounds under the circumstances that
25 I described.
1 Q. Thank you, Professor.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 69 in
3 B/C/S. For the sake of the Chamber, I know that only one member of the
4 Chamber speaks German. I don't know about the other two members of the
5 Chamber. In German it's page 217. We did everything we could, we did
6 our utmost to find the English version, but we simply couldn't find it.
7 Q. Now, my question to you has to do with witness statement, namely,
8 that before the victims were thrown into the well they had been beaten.
9 So we don't have this on the screen, but question to you is: Given the
10 condition that the corpses were in, could one find that beating and
11 torture took place before these victims were killed and thrown into the
13 A. The forensic technicians who registered the injuries, they did
14 not register such injuries that would indicate that these persons had
15 been beaten or tortured before death and that they had sustained injuries
16 that would correspond to this and confirm that they had been tortured.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see on the
18 screen page 101 in B/C/S and page 75 in English.
19 Q. Doctor, we'll wait a few seconds for this to appear on the
20 screen, but let me ask you the question already. On page 101 of the
21 document P1167 it says that a Chinese bullet produced in 1964 was found.
22 As you were also the defence minister in the Government of the Federal
23 Republic of Yugoslavia
24 can you tell us whether our armed forces had any Chinese ammunition. Was
25 such ammunition ever used in the territory of the Federal Republic
2 A. I can say that we do not have and did not have Chinese
3 ammunition, as we have our own factories that produce ammunition.
4 Therefore, the armed forces or the security forces never had Chinese-made
5 ammunition. At the same time, I have to say that during a certain
6 period, which I cannot specify, the ammunition of this kind was no longer
7 used. Something that was produced in 1964 would not be used by armed
8 forces. After a certain period, I think that it's about ten years or so
9 the ammunition becomes obsolete. So it is then either destroyed or it is
10 processed, the gunpowder is used and taken out. This is not something
11 that I'm an expert about, but I wanted to say that we did not have such
12 an ammunition, and it was produced too long ago to be used at all at the
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And one of the last
15 questions that I have in connection with this document, P1167, could we
16 please see page 6 in B/C/S and in English. Let us return to the page
17 that we already had on the screen.
18 Q. Can you tell us what was the age and the sex of the bodies that
19 were found in those wells? Their age, considering the possibility that
20 they were engaged in military activities and conflicts.
21 A. From the list of persons whose bodies were found in the well, it
22 follows that the youngest body was Kuqi Minah born on the 14th of May,
23 1982, and the body taken out of the well born in 1971 -- no, excuse me,
24 1964. But here are also the people who perished closer to the mosque but
25 they are older than that.
1 Q. And the conclusion?
2 A. The conclusion is that these were able-bodied persons who could
3 discharge military duties.
4 Q. I will end my questions connected to this document with this.
5 The next document -- just a second.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next exhibit is 65 ter
7 00383. It is a Defence document, Cirez. It is a document closely
8 connected to an exhibit, P1162, which is a report of a French forensic
9 expert. It is an omnibus report.
10 Q. And please take this into account when giving answers to my
11 following questions, Doctor.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] First of all, I will ask for
13 page 5 in B/C/S to be shown on the screen. That's 65 ter 00383, and we
14 need page 5 in B/C/S and page 56 in English. My question has to do with
15 the following. Page 5 in B/C/S, please, and page 56 in English. We see
16 the first page in English version of the document. I see that we still
17 cannot see page 56 in English. It's obvious that we have some problems
18 with e-court. 65 ter 00383, page 5 in B/C/S and page 56 in English,
20 Q. All right. I will ask the question anyway, and later on we can
21 come back to this so as not to lose any time. The question will be
22 short. Is it possible to establish the cause of death in persons whose
23 mortal remains were about two months in water?
24 A. The cause of death of persons whose mortal remains were in water
25 for two months cannot be established by autopsy alone. To establish what
1 happened before death includes a number of measures that have to be taken
2 by investigation organs in order to find out whether they drowned or
3 whether they were put in water after death. In this case, without --
4 without any doubt, they established that these persons were drowned while
5 alive, but there was nothing to support this claim.
6 Q. Thank you. If the mortal remains have been in water for two or
7 two and a half months, can one find fresh traces of blood on them? That
8 would be my next question.
9 A. It is generally known that depending on the conditions, but after
10 death blood begins to decompose, and after two months in water it is
11 certainly not possible to establish that there is any presence of red
12 blood on the opening of the vulva. One can say that this is putrefying
13 liquid, but not that there is any presence of blood. At the same time,
14 if someone says that because of the decomposition changes it is
15 impossible to establish the existence of a wound, then one could ask:
16 Well, how is it then possible to see traces of blood when we know that
17 blood decomposes very quickly, particularly in water, and then not to
18 register injuries? So I think that a claim like this cannot be defended
19 in any way.
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I see that finally we have the
21 English version. This question is connected with page 5 in B/C/S and
22 page 56 in the English version, as well as page 8 in the B/C/S version
23 and page 58 in the English version.
24 The next page that I will ask for is page 4 of the B/C/S version
25 and page 56 of the English version.
1 Q. Professor, the body is marked as SIP1C4. Is it possible that the
2 underwear is not dirty if there is a description of red blood, as we saw
4 A. If any -- if there was any bleeding there and any changes or
5 decomposition of the blood, any putrefaction and the change of blood into
6 putrid liquid, then the part of the underwear that is next to the sexual
7 organs one would have to note such traces. And in this particular case
8 the persons who carried out autopsy did not describe this. And the --
9 nor was there such a description in some other female bodies that were
10 taken out of the water.
11 Q. And could we see such markings on the underwear after a body had
12 been two or two and a half months in water?
13 A. Well, it could be, but not necessarily.
14 Q. Thank you. The next page of this document is page 8 in B/C/S,
15 that is to say page 56 of the English version. The body is marked
16 SIP1C2. Can you please comment on the injuries registered on this body
17 and give us your opinion about the cause of injuries on this body.
18 A. Well, in the case of this woman, injuries that were registered
19 were injuries to the right inner thigh, abrasive ones, that could be the
20 consequence of trying to jump over an edge of a well. It also could be
21 the consequence of the fall and hitting some object or the body of
22 another person who could have been in the well. So that's more or less
23 everything I could say at this moment. I might add something later.
24 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] All right. Let us now look at
25 page 17 in B/C/S and page 64 in English. My colleague tells me that the
1 transcript says this was a body marked SIP1C4, so it was actually SIP1C1,
2 that's the body described on page 4 before what we talked about now.
3 This was SIP1C2, and then it was SIP1C1, so please put C1 instead of C4
4 in the transcript. We were looking for page 17 in B/C/S and page 64 in
5 English. Fractures of ribs in bodies SIP2C1 and SIP3C3. It's on page 27
6 for the reference in B/C/S and page 71 in English and page 31 in B/C/S
7 and 74 in English.
8 Q. Doctor, can you tell us, what do you think about the summary and
9 the conclusion of what is stated about the fractures of ribs, which are
10 on pages 31 in English and page 74 in B/C/S? So let us show page 31 in
11 B/C/S of this document and page 74 in English with the possible cause of
12 fracture of ribs in these two bodies.
13 A. This summary of the description of these injuries, the team says
14 when discussing the fractures of ribs they say that in the thorax it
15 seems that the injuries correspond to strong pressure on the edge of the
16 well when the bodies were thrown into the well. That was on page 31. On
17 page 27 in the autopsy report the conclusion says:
18 "The death by drowning with lateral fractures on the right side
19 of the thorax ante mortem caused by fall."
20 Now, what is the truth? It is true that such injuries could be
21 caused by fall, but if a different conclusion is drawn than the one we
22 have in the autopsy report then it's necessary to remove the
23 contradiction. And those who were the authors of the report should have
24 done that.
25 Q. Would that be possible after so much time, Professor?
1 A. You should ask them that.
2 Q. On page 30 and on page --
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic, what has just been dealt with? We
4 don't appear to have the right page.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know. I cannot see
6 either in B/C/S or in English which page is on the screen, but I can see
7 in B/C/S that this is the body --
8 JUDGE PARKER: We have page 31 in B/C/S and 74 in English.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] It seems to me that in English
10 we have the conclusion, that's the summary. And I asked the question
11 about that, but in B/C/S on page 31 I cannot see the conclusion.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Were you not talking about fractures of ribs and
13 what conclusions could be reached from those?
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Just a moment.
15 [Interpretation] The first I asked for was page 17 in B/C/S and
16 page 64 in English.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I see the time. We must have our break.
18 Could I suggest that you sort out the references, and we'll be able to
19 look at them when we return.
20 We must have a break now for the tapes to be rewound, and we
21 continue at 11.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Before the witness enters,
1 Your Honour, I wanted to say the page 17 in the B/C/S and 64 in the
2 English is the correct reference. We can deal with that before the
3 witness enters.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.
7 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
8 believe we have the right page now.
9 Q. Concerning our last topic, which was the fracture of ribs, this
10 is what you addressed as well as the possible mechanisms of rib fractures
11 with these two persons. Is there anything you wished to add?
12 A. I can only reiterate what I have already said.
13 Q. Please go ahead because we were interrupted, and there were
14 certain things that were not clear.
15 A. In the summary the French experts say that the thoracic fractures
16 were ante mortem without skin injuries, which seem to indicate that there
17 was a lot of pressure exerted on the body before it was thrown into the
18 well and the injuries were the cause of the body being pressed against
19 the coping of the well. However, this is not reflected in the
20 conclusions because in the conclusions of the autopsy for SIPC3C they say
21 there were lateral fractures to the thorax created ante mortem caused by
22 a fall. They concluded that the ribs were fractured because the body was
23 pressed against the coping of the well before it was thrown down the
24 well; whereas, in the autopsy findings we have them listed as the result
25 of the fall. This is the contradiction. Also, I can say that rib
1 fractures can be created in both the ways described in the document.
2 Q. Concerning the injuries of these corpses, what kind of injuries
3 can one expect to see when a body falls into a well? Perhaps you could
4 be more specific, say for rib fractures.
5 A. First of all, if we have in mind the description of the well,
6 which was inspected, and if we know that the diameter of the well was
7 1.10 metres, which is 110 centimetres, and that it had a wooden fence,
8 and that the other well was 105 centimetres with a concrete wall around
9 it, and the third well had the diameter of 100 centimetres with a wooden
10 fence; in such circumstances it would be realistic to expect a larger
11 number of injuries on the bodies than those described if the bodies had
12 been thrown into the well head first, as is stated on page 31 of the
13 translation. It is realistic to expect that if one throws a body down
14 the well it goes down under a slanted angle, which means that it is very
15 likely that the head would hit a wall of the shaft, creating injuries
16 such as abrasions, skull fractures with damage to the brain tissue which
17 may result in death. In -- among these cases we do see one such injury
18 on one body, but not on the others. It is realistic to expect that if a
19 person is falling head first, that that person would instinctively spread
20 out arms or spread the legs, thus changing the position of the body. And
21 at such protruded parts of the body, such as the limbs, some injuries
22 should be registered; however, we do not see that save for the two
23 abrasions of the skin tissue which we have already discussed. I would
24 kindly ask the Chamber and the Prosecutor, since I received another
25 document later on, to be allowed to quote it only one part, it's another
1 summary. It is marked P1162. Kosovo: Summary report of the French
2 forensic mission, which is the summary for the Cirez site. Perhaps I can
3 quote that from page 6. It says:
4 "The first well is partially filled up with construction debris.
5 In the other two there were floating bodies."
6 If the first well was full of construction debris, then I have no
7 explanation -- or rather, there is only one explanation, which I can
8 think of. If the bodies were thrown in head first how come there were no
9 injuries? These were four female bodies. There were no injuries to the
10 head or on some other parts of the bodies. If they fell in legs first,
11 how come there are no injuries on the lower extremities, on the lower
12 limbs? The only conclusion is, with all due respect for the witness, was
13 that the bodies were lowered into the well rather than thrown in. This
14 is the only way I can think of in terms of explaining the absence of such
16 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Kravetz.
17 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, I've been a bit slow to rise on my
18 feet because I was looking for this exhibit. I saw that it's not on the
19 witness notification of exhibits to be used, and we had been given no
20 notice that the witness would be commenting on this report. But I see
21 the witness has already done so.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, and there is no doubt an opportunity during a
23 coming break for you to have a look at it, but if that is insufficient
24 you will be able to raise the matter. Thank you.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I wanted to tell Their Honours
1 that we had no particular intention for -- to use this exhibit, although
2 it is related to the 65 ter document, and it does not introduce anything
3 that would be particularly new to the expert report of Professor
4 Stankovic. Having in mind all of the Chamber's instructions, we revised
5 this document, and I would seek for 65 ter 00383 to be admitted. And
6 with this I would completely close this topic.
7 JUDGE PARKER: At the top of the screen in front of you,
8 Mr. Djordjevic, just going off the screen we started with a quotation
9 from the report, which is:
10 "The first well is partially filled up with construction debris."
11 The next sentence is not in the quote, but it appears that it may well be
12 part of the quote, and that sentence is:
13 "In the other two there were floating bodies."
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Yes, that's correct.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Could you confirm with the witness whether that is
16 in fact part of the quotation?
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Stankovic, the first part of the record says as follows:
19 "The first well was partially filled up with construction
20 debris." And then the next sentence is: In the other two wells there
21 are floating bodies. And then there is the next sentence: If in the
22 first well and so on. Do you agree that the end of the quote is after
23 the second sentence?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] You're quite correct,
1 Your Honour, which is confirmed by the witness. The rest were witness's
2 conclusions -- sorry, expert's conclusions.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
4 Now, you were tendering -- what is it that you were tendering?
5 You've given a number. Can you tell us what that is?
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Immediately, Your Honour. It is
7 the French forensic medical team in Kosovo in the summer of 1999 Cirez
8 site autopsies K017-6730 to K017-6756. It is 65 ter 00383. This is what
9 the questions put to the witness were about. I believe I had eight
10 questions in total concerning his objections of the findings by his
11 French colleagues in terms of the site in Cirez.
12 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
13 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D00924, Your Honour.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
15 The next topic is P1174. It is the location of Gornja Sudimlja.
16 It is K017-7487, K017-7720. The location, as I said, is Gornja Sudimlja.
17 Again, the French forensic mission in Kosovo, summer of 1999. Could we
18 please see the first page of that report. This is the cover page.
19 Q. Professor, did you study this as well?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Thank you. So you had occasion to study the findings of the
22 French forensic mission and their work in Gornja Sudimlja. You could see
23 how they determined the firing distance concerning the projectiles which
24 caused the gun-shot injuries in question. Before directing you to that,
25 can you please explain to us how is range assessed concerning the
1 distance from which projectiles were fired into a body? What methods are
2 possible, and given your years-long experience, sir, what can you tell us
3 about that?
4 A. Having analysed the French forensic mission's findings, many
5 things remained clear in my -- unclear in my mind, having in mind the way
6 of interpretation of the range of the barrel before firing, the
7 assessed -- that is why I wanted to refer to the universally accepted
8 principles used in our countries as well as elsewhere concerning gun-shot
9 wounds. Gun-shot wounds can be caused point-blank or from very close
10 range. In such instances the rifle barrel needs to be put against the
11 surface of a body or clothing or up to the distance of 5 millimetres.
12 Such injuries, such gun-shot wounds, are caused -- are called point-blank
13 firing injuries or contact range injuries.
14 Another group would be the injuries caused from close range. It
15 usually occurs with short-barrelled weapons. The barrel cannot be moved
16 by more than 50 centimetres. This indicates that from that distance, if
17 a projectile is fired on the surface of the body and the clothing, one
18 can find gunpowder traces. For example, it can be gunpowder particles,
19 soot, or metal particles. Beyond this distance from 50 centimetres up
20 for short-barrelled weapons and 150 centimetres for long-barrelled
21 weapons, these are distant range injuries. If we have the weapon used to
22 fire at the victim, in such instances there is a comparative analysis
23 that needs to be conducted. In other words, the weapons is used to fire
24 at a pristine surface such as a white sheet of paper and then the type of
25 wound and soot traces are compared to the surface traces in order to
1 determine the distance.
2 In this case, as well as in the analysis of the ballistic
3 experts, I did not find any information about who and how determined the
4 range. I will address that a bit later, specifically the report by the
5 ballistics expert Mr. Pejic.
6 Q. Doctor, can you tell us something about the appearance of the
7 wound in putrefied corpses, and I mean wounds caused by fire-arms with
8 either long or short barrels.
9 A. When one has in mind each of these wounds which were
10 contact-range wounds, they have their specific characteristics. If it's
11 a contact-range distance -- if it's a contact-range injury, then the
12 injury can be circular, oval, or star-shaped if it is in the location
13 where we have large surface bones such as the skull. Gunpowder traces
14 are found inside the wound itself and in the immediate vicinity where
15 they are all of course taken from. In the head area the wound is usually
16 larger. A close- or contact-range injury usually has a circular entry
17 wound with the gunpowder traces circular pattern, and around it there are
18 gunpowder traces, soot, and so on. Distant-range injuries have varying
19 types of shapes. They can be circular, oval, or of another shape
20 depending of the angle. The gunpowder trace ring or circle is different
21 and the traces around the wound are less. These are the main
22 characteristics of such gun-shot wounds.
23 And now about putrefied corpses' injuries. Out of the 5.000
24 corpses I carried out autopsies on in the war areas, at least three and a
25 half thousand of them had putrefaction changes. This also entails
1 decomposition of parts of body, especially collagen and elastic tissues,
2 binding tissue, and it is impossible to determine with any certainty the
3 profile caused by the fire-arm. If we only make our conclusions based on
4 the shape and type of wound which in the process of putrefaction changes
5 and if that is used only to use the profile, that is to say the calibre
6 of the weapon, then we consider that a professional error; however, I do
7 not see that here. At the same time, I must say, since I wanted to
8 address Mr. Pejic's report -- but this is another document. I don't know
9 if I'm allowed to do that.
10 Q. I'll stop you here.
11 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have an exhibit
12 next which is P1172, examples 19 and 20. It is page 91 in the B/C/S, and
13 in the English it is 61.
14 Q. First I'll have a general question. Without wasting much time on
15 this I wanted to ask you the following: Since in your report you
16 mentioned a number of cases and reasons due to which you were doubtful of
17 the French experts' conclusions, could you please refer to a few cases
18 which you believe are specific or characteristic since I don't think we
19 need to dwell on this topic too much.
20 A. Well, you mentioned page 91.
21 Q. If I'm not mistaken, in B/C/S, and this is page 61 in English.
22 This is Exhibit P1172, example 19.
23 A. Well, in the conclusion provided by the forensic experts we can
24 see that "the entry and exit point or wound cannot be identified because
25 of the cranial and facial damage and the loss of bone tissue."
1 However, in the next sentence it is stated that the total
2 appearance suggests that a 12- or 16-millimetre calibre bullet was fired
3 at contact range, so I wonder on the basis of which they made this
4 conclusion. If there was no entry or exit wound, if there was simply
5 destroyed skull, you need to be able to find a trace of gunpowder
6 explosion if you want to make any conclusions of this kind concerning
7 entry and exit wound. So you have to have different particles, gunpowder
8 particles, or anything else in order to be able to draw this type of a
9 conclusion. So I believe that this conclusion does not follow from the
10 report of the forensic experts.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the page 121
13 in B/C/S and page 81 in English of the same document, P1172.
14 Q. So this is example 20, if you would kindly continue with your
16 A. On page 121 we have conclusions for the body.
17 Q. This is example 20.
18 A. C84, this is small-calibre bullet, so in the same fashion here we
19 can say that the subject had transfacial gun-shot wound, tangential to
20 the skull from right to left, top to bottom, front to back with a
21 low-calibre bullet fired at close range, and so on. And in the
22 description of the wound it is stated that it was impossible to discern
23 neither entry nor exit wound, but the overall appearance suggested that
24 it was a bullet wound, so this conclusion does not follow from the
25 description of the wound. So in this case as well as in some other cases
1 I believe we can say that this was an arbitrary conclusion.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go back to
4 document 1174, P1174, and could we please have page 72 in B/C/S on the
5 screen and page 49 in English. So the exhibit is P1174 and pages are 72
6 in B/C/S and 49 in English.
7 Q. We will wait for a moment to see the document on the screen.
8 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] So in English it is page 49.
9 The exhibit is 1174.
10 Q. So the conclusion number 18, what can you tell us given the
11 depression marks on the skull bones and the mechanism of how they were
12 created, bearing in mind the body L2C68, L2C83, and L2C87? For the sake
13 of the record, I just want to add that this also appears on page 118 in
14 English -- sorry, in B/C/S and 79 in English and on page 130 in B/C/S and
15 87 in English.
16 A. Well, in the description of this wound we can see that in case of
17 the body L2C67 there was a depression fracture of the skull bone of 6.4
18 centimetres, and furthermore, it is stated that the cranial trauma caused
19 by a blunt object within the brackets rifle-butt caused the death. As
20 far as I could hear from people who are experts in this, there is no
21 rifle-butt of this diameter. So I fully agreed that this was the
22 description of the wound; however, I don't believe that it was caused by
23 the rifle-butt. Possibly it was another type of blunt object but
24 certainly not a rifle-butt.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] All right. Could we now see
1 page 150 in B/C/S and page 101 in English.
2 Q. Given your objections to the French experts' report, do you
3 believe that this summary is acceptable? Could you please comment on the
4 conclusions that the French expert team drew?
5 A. On the basis of the summary that was provided in this document
6 and bearing in mind everything that I said previously concerning this
7 report, I believe that due to some inconsistencies --
8 Q. I apologise. I said that it was 1174, whereas now we are dealing
9 with Exhibit P1172, page 150 in B/C/S and 101 in English. So it is the
10 document P1172.
11 Go ahead, sir.
12 A. Bearing in mind the conclusion provided by the experts who
13 compiled this report and bearing in mind what I said previously, I
14 believe that a large part of the conclusion of the French forensic expert
15 team is unacceptable from the point of view of forensic medicine, and
16 that is my position which I'm willing to defend here.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see the
19 exhibit P1166, pages 26 in B/C/S, one part of the relevant text is on
20 page 27 as well, and we have the same pages in English, that is, page 26
21 and 27. As I said, it was Exhibit P1166.
22 Q. My question for you, sir, has to do with a topic that is also
23 covered on pages 40 in B/C/S and in English. Sir, you can see the cover
24 page here. Have you seen this report before?
25 A. Yes, I analysed this report from the point of view of my
1 speciality, and bearing in mind everything that is mentioned here by the
2 ballistic expert who compiled this report - and that report was used to
3 determine the distances from which the projectiles were fired. So the
4 ballistic expert says:
5 "It should be noted that the profiles were taken during firing
6 tests carried out using 10 per cent ballistic gelatin. Now this mixture
7 is a simulant of even consistency that mimics muscle at rest."
8 On a body we do not register entry wounds on muscle tissue but
9 rather, on skin tissue, and the competition of the skin tissue is rather
10 different from the composition of the muscle tissue. At the same time
11 here, they're saying that the gelatin mimics the muscle at rest, and we
12 know that obviously at any moment in time when somebody's wounded
13 somebody can see the person firing at him or who can see the gun-shots,
14 then such persons are trying to hide or run away, so they're not at rest.
15 So obviously we have three layers of the skin, epidermis, the upper
16 layer; dermis, which is the middle layer; and deep layer as well, and
17 each of these three layers is composed of different cells. So in the
18 deep layer we have a great number of elastic fibres, but we also have
19 nerve fibres and different other fibres that provide elasticity. We also
20 have the binding tissue and -- whereas on the upper layer we have
21 epithelial cells which serve as protection. So you cannot use this
22 particular test to draw any certain conclusions concerning the profiles
23 and calibres of guns that were used to inflict certain wounds. We said
24 already that we had dead bodies that were all in an advanced stage of
25 decomposition, and this putrefaction caused certain changes in the
1 composition of the body in the majority of cases and increase of wounds
2 which was also decision of the gases that appear within the chest as a
3 result of putrefaction, so I believe that the conclusions of the kind
4 that were drawn by these ballistic experts are unacceptable.
5 We tried in the military medical academy to do the same thing
6 using the ballistic gelatin, and we also tried -- we also tried to use
7 paraffin cast and fire at that because we believed that this was the
8 closest to the body. We also wanted to use tests on animals, but we
9 couldn't proceed with that. We had to reduce them because we had
10 protests from different NGOs fighting for animal rights. So we looked at
11 the tests carried out by our Norwegian colleagues to see how they did it
12 within the scope of a project of co-operation, and possibly if you made
13 tests of that kind you could draw some relevant conclusions. But I
14 believe that the conclusions drawn by this ballistic expert are
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see on the
18 screen exhibit P1165. This is another report of the French forensic
19 mission carried out in summer of 1999 in Kosovo in the site of Izbica.
20 Q. Sir, these are autopsies K017-976 -- 6652. So could we please,
21 first of all, see the cover page of this document, P1165.
22 Sir, could you please tell me whether you considered this report
23 when you compiled your report, so this report of the French forensic
24 mission in Kosovo for the Izbica site.
25 A. Yes, I did. But if you allow me to add just one sentence to what
1 I was saying before, and that is that the conclusion of that ballistic
2 expert report which is on page 41 of the document we could previously see
3 was that in Gornja Sudimlja site all the shots were fired at point-blank
4 range or with guns leaning against the body, which is contrary to the
5 majority of conclusions or the majority of finds that we could see in the
6 French forensic experts' report. Because in those findings this
7 conclusion could not be drawn because the conclusion is that these were
8 all fired at point-blank range; in other words, that these were
10 Q. Thank you, sir.
11 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 2 of this
12 document in B/C/S. In English it is page 3.
13 Thank you. I also need to say that the relevant pages are also
14 page 19 in B/C/S, which is page 14 in English.
15 Q. What could you tell us concerning the difference between people
16 allegedly killed and the number of cartridges that were found on the
18 A. In this report it is stated that approximately 150 persons were
19 killed, and later on on page 19 and 20 we can see that 84 fragments of
20 war munition were recovered. If every single body only got one gun-shot
21 wound and this doesn't follow from this report, then we could say that
22 more than one-half of these persons had gun-shot wounds, whereas the rest
23 of them didn't have any. So we have a great difference between the
24 number of cartridges and the number of wounds. If all the cartridges
25 were found on the same spot, then we could conclude that the number of
1 persons allegedly killed does not correspond to what the finding
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see page 7
5 in B/C/S and page 5 in English.
6 Q. Sir, here you can see the description of damaged clothes. Can we
7 talk about the distance from which the projectiles were fired?
8 A. In the description on damage to the male clothing, ISD1E1 it
9 says: Holes in the upper third of the back indicate that this was a
10 point-blank range firing. They do not say whether any fire traces were
11 found on the clothing or whether -- whether there were any traces of
12 gunpowder explosion on the fabric. So based on what they made this
13 conclusion is not clear at all. They say that the fabric was damaged
14 from its edge, but they do not describe the damage, which is much more
15 important, how this jacket was damaged and whether it was done from -- by
16 firing from close -- or rather, point-blank range.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 20 in
19 B/C/S and page 15 in English.
20 Q. Our question for you: How can one determine the calibre, and is
21 it possible to do that on the basis of damage on fabric, on clothes?
22 A. If we have a fabric that has holes diameter 29 millimetres and
23 then based on that they conclude that it was 12-millimetre calibre, then
24 one has to wonder: How did they conclude this and on the basis of which
25 parameters? If we know that this fabric was also in the soil for some
1 period of time and that fabric is also susceptible to changes and
2 decomposition, then such a finding would be considered faulty and our
3 courts would reject it.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 22 in
5 B/C/S and 16 in English in the same document.
6 Q. We can see the conclusion of the French forensic mission here.
7 Can you please comment on their conclusion.
8 A. I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. It's hard to discuss
9 somebody's finding when the author is not there and you cannot confront
10 him and challenge his opinion. I would really like some of the authors
11 of this report to explain to us based on what they reached this
12 conclusion without having autopsy findings of the victims and that the
13 clothing was as described here, torn and decomposed due to spending some
14 time in the soil and so on. Based on the description of the clothing
15 given here and analysed, one cannot reach these conclusions, these
16 findings. I don't want to use any heavy language, but to put it mildly
17 it's unacceptable. We do not have any description of traces indicating
18 that around these openings there are traces of blood. We know that
19 putrid fluid can come out of various cavities, but not from parts of the
20 human body where the skin is preserved. So I would like to know based on
21 which data they came to such a conclusion, and I would like to face the
22 authors of this author [as interpreted].
23 Q. And what is your comment on this finding?
24 A. As I've already said, this finding is unacceptable.
25 Q. Professor, while preparing for this testimony and also earlier,
1 you had a chance to see video marked as --
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the number of the
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] But it is Exhibit P288. I will
5 not ask that that video be played now.
6 Q. But given that you saw this video excerpt, I would like to ask
7 you to comment on it in relation to the findings in the expert report of
8 the French forensic team in relation to the bodies that we discussed so
9 far in the Izbica location.
10 A. I watched this video excerpt on a number of occasions, which you
11 can see in my expert report. Also, having analysed material from Izbica
12 and statements, I could determine that these people perished in three
13 locations. However, the video footage one can see corpses and when one
14 analyses the area and the appearance of the corpses, one can see that the
15 corpses had been found in nine locations. First, one body wrapped in a
16 blanket was found in a warehouse with quartermaster items there. And
17 then number 2, we have bodies lined up on a green meadow. This is 6
18 minutes, 26 seconds into the excerpt, and one can see that the bodies had
19 been brought in from elsewhere because on the soles of their footwear
20 there were layers of mud while the meadow surface is clean. Then there
21 was one body with a large stomach and characteristic clothes seen 9
22 minutes and 10 seconds into the footage. This body is seen again 36
23 minutes, 18 seconds into the video excerpt, and this body is brought on a
24 tractor-trailer for burial. Then we can see bodies in a low bitter oak
25 forest 11 minutes, 10 seconds into the film. And then on a meadow with
1 burn damage and intact tractors 6 minutes, 5 seconds into the film. And
2 then there are bodies lined up next to each other by a low bitter oak
3 forest. Then there is a body lying on a yellowish blanket, 18 minutes,
4 20 seconds into the film. Six bodies with pieces of paper on their
5 chests bearing the family Bajra and various other names, 26 minutes, 2
6 seconds into the film. Bodies brought on blankets, one wearing a green
7 camouflage uniform 20 minutes, 30 seconds into the footage. And so on.
8 So based on this film one can see that the bodies were found in
9 more than three locations.
10 Q. Thank you. The next clip, the next footage, can you tell us
11 whether this footage can be used as evidence on the number and type of
13 A. I'm not prone to challenging despite the impression that you may
14 have had so far, I'm not prone to challenging what is -- what can be
15 found in various exhibits. But this footage can be used as evidence if
16 later on it is supported by autopsy reports for these corpses. In this
17 particular case we cannot compare this footage to the autopsy reports
18 that were done by, say, Dr. Tomasevic. If we were to compare the bodies
19 we can see in this film with at least some of the visible injuries on the
20 head and compare that to the autopsy reports of Dr. Tomasevic and the
21 description contained therein, then that could be confirmed. But in that
22 particular case it was not done. So based on the report of Dr. Tomasevic
23 we see that all bodies received gun-shot wounds. In one case they
24 describe a body whose nose was broken, and then after that --
25 JUDGE PARKER: Could you pause here, please, Doctor.
1 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, the comments of this witness regarding
2 Dr. Tomasevic are on page 12 of the report. Pursuant to Your Honours'
3 decision issued this week, that portion of the report has been redacted.
4 JUDGE PARKER: That's why I interrupted the doctor,
5 Mr. Djordjevic. I think this is dealing with a part of his report that
6 is not received in evidence.
7 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honours.
8 As a result of that we redacted the first version, and we took out the
9 report of Dr. Tomasevic, in compliance with the Court order, even though
10 this report pertains to Izbica, and so far it was not admitted into
11 evidence. The Defence did intend to tender it into evidence, but
12 naturally we cannot oppose the Court order. And as a result of that, we
13 redacted the initial version, and our witness didn't know this and he
14 started commenting on Dr. Tomasevic's report. So naturally we cannot
15 continue with this line of questioning. I don't think there's anything
16 bad in him mentioning Dr. Tomasevic's report, but we will stop it here.
17 This is 65 ter 00248. That's the report of Dr. Tomasevic on the autopsy
18 results from Izbica, summer 1999, which is precisely the topic of the
19 work of the French forensic team.
20 May I continue, Your Honours?
21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Please move on. For the reasons indicated
22 we won't be considering this part of the evidence. Thank you.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] We have a statement by Milazim
24 Thaqi. This is D126. And it's in evidence, page 5, please. In both
25 B/C/S and English, paragraph 1 in English of that statement.
1 We have a document that we would be tendering into evidence.
2 These are some photographs, and the Prosecution has been notified of
3 this, but let us first look at page 5 in B/C/S and page 5, paragraph 1 in
4 English --
5 JUDGE PARKER: Before that, Ms. Kravetz.
6 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, I rise to my feet simply because this
7 witness statement is again a statement that is not dealt within the
8 report of the witness. He has no comments on this specifically, and it
9 is our position that he shouldn't be allowed to comment on a statement
10 that has not been directly addressed within his report.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] It's an identical situation as
13 the statement of the previous witness. A very short comment concerning
14 what is stated in that statement, which will be supported by the
15 photographs which are Prosecution's exhibit. This is why Defence
16 yesterday asked for additional time to prepare for this. So could we
17 please see Exhibit 126, page 5 in B/C/S and 5 in English, paragraph 1.
18 And immediately --
19 JUDGE PARKER: Before you rush ahead, Mr. Djordjevic, there is an
20 objection. The Chamber, though, as it did with the last objection, with
21 they being very similar, would allow you to continue with this. So that
22 having been done, please go ahead.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I
24 apologise for the fact that the Defence seems to be impatient.
25 Q. Paragraph 1. You have seen this statement, you have gone over
1 it, haven't you, Dr. Stankovic?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see the
5 photographs, please, 65 ter 227. The Prosecution has been notified of
6 this, 65 ter 227. Could we see them after this.
7 Q. We saw what is stated here. You will now see the photographs.
8 And please tell us, what are possible interpretations. Have you read
10 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Please show us the photographs,
11 65 ter 227.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Just pause a minute, please, Mr. Djordjevic. We
13 have no English on the screen at the moment.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I missed that, Your Honours.
15 The same page, page 5 in English. So both in B/C/S and in English, page
16 5. In English it's paragraph 1. D126, page 5.
17 JUDGE PARKER: No, that's B/C/S again, Mr. Djordjevic.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] We saw the English text. I'm
19 convinced that there is an English version, but if the Trial Chamber
20 allows, I can read it out slowly in B/C/S rather than wait like we did
21 last time, 3 to 5 minutes. Would you allow me to read it in B/C/S,
22 Your Honours, and then it will be interpreted for you.
23 JUDGE PARKER: If we are waiting it is because the reference
24 you've given is not accurate, but please read it slowly in English.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 "The machine-gun fired endlessly, and two men fell on my back and
2 knocked me down on the ground. Both of them fell over me. One was my
3 relative Uke Uka, 74 years old from Broja. The upper part of his head
4 was blown apart and his brains dispersed all over me. He fell over my
5 upper body and over my right shoulder. The other man was Isuf Zezeqa
6 Shala, 63 years old from Broja. He fell over my upper body on the left
7 side and over my shoulder. The shooting went on for just several
8 seconds, and it seemed to me that the policemen who had escorted us fired
9 because I didn't he see any other policemen near us. He sprayed bullets
10 all over us three times up and down. The bullets flew all around me and
11 some of them zoomed past my head, but I wasn't hit. Later on I saw three
12 bullet-holes on the back of my jacket, sweater, and shirt. It seems that
13 the bullets have come from the side and just grazed my back. I'm
14 fortunate to be alive. God protected me he."
15 Could we now see photographs. As I said, it's 65 ter 227.
16 One by one, please. This is the jacket -- or the shirt the
17 witness mentioned. Thank you.
18 Q. Doctor, did you have an opportunity to view these photographs?
19 A. Yes. I think they are of poor quality, too poor, actually, to be
20 able to draw any conclusions. However, I need to comment on the
21 statement itself, if I am allowed to do so. If someone had one or two
22 bodies on the back and the locations of bullet-holes are specified, such
23 damage to his clothing could not have occurred. It could only have
24 happened if the person was standing and if fired at laterally. In that
25 case, having in mind the size of the back, there must have been soft
1 tissue damage or wounds to the ribs which would be followed by bleeding,
2 and that would have left marks on the clothes.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] We will provide the English
5 reference. It is D126. The B/C/S was 0301-3042 and the English is
6 1600-0118. Before that we have IC 1600-0118 and 0301-3042, as I've said
7 already. Thank you. This was the other part that Defence wanted to
8 tender, and it was redacted pursuant to your instruction.
9 The next document is P1139.
10 Q. Was there anything else you wanted to tell us about Izbica,
11 Doctor, before we move on to the report of Dr. Eric Baccard?
12 A. I could perhaps mention --
13 Q. Without mentioning, though.
14 A. Without mentioning, that we also have in mind witness statements,
15 and the findings of Dr. Tomasevic is something I cannot comment upon.
16 Yes, I'll follow your instruction of course.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Although the doctor said that
18 the photographs are poor, we still would like to have them admitted to
19 serve as evidence, Your Honours. This is 65 ter 227. This is on the
20 Prosecutor's list.
21 JUDGE PARKER: They will be received as one exhibit.
22 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D00925, Your Honour.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
24 The next topic we wanted to deal with is P1139. Forensic medical
25 analysis and summary of reports in forensic examinations conducted in
1 Kosovo in 1999 by Dr. Eric Baccard. It is K021-4664 and K021-4817.
2 Could we please have page 9 in the B/C/S and in the English version.
3 Q. You can see it in your documents, Doctor. Did you have occasion
4 to view this analysis?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. There's a conclusion stated that each location was
7 covered by the same method of forensic examination. This was a summary
8 of the analysis of Dr. Baccard. Do you agree with this statement when
9 medical/legal examinations are used as applied by different teams from
11 A. It is a bit odd that after so many investigations, which were
12 done upon the request of this Prosecutor's office and in Bosnia
13 as in Croatia
14 war, that the method determined for the investigation of mass graves,
15 including the methodology by Mr. Wright, who's an Australian, as well as
16 a number of cases where I took part in be it as Prosecution or Defence
17 witness that I was able to observe, it is rather odd that in this area a
18 different methodology was used. As indicated in the first sentence, it
19 goes against the grain of the rest of the report when it states that the
20 used methodology was identical. If you use the method used by the French
21 mission headed by Lecomte, you can see that there are drastic differences
22 in terms of approach to autopsy as well as manner of description and to
23 the contents of such autopsy reports. I don't think it was the same
25 Q. Could you single out any of the applied methodologies as
2 A. Well, I might be biassed in that and misunderstood, but I believe
3 that the colleagues from the medical forensic institute in Belgrade
4 created such detailed reports that one can learn anything and everything
5 in terms of interest of investigative organs from those reports.
6 Q. Thank you. This related to the methods. What about the overall
7 report of Dr. Baccard, what can you say about that in general terms as
8 you provided it in your report?
9 A. Reading the report I was minded to provide my own opinion on some
10 of his findings; however, first I wanted to address the end of the
11 summary report. This report contains 158 pages. Nine pages are the
12 contents. Three pages is the CV of Mr. Baccard. 83 pages contain
13 summaries of autopsy reports of the corpses in the locations of Racak,
14 Bela Crkva, Mala Krusa, Djakovica; in two streets, Padalista, Izbica,
15 Kotlina, Dubrava, Vata, Stagovo, Gornja Sudimlja, the prison in Dubrava,
16 the cemetery in Rakos and Suva Reka. All those reports amounted to 83
17 pages. As for the notes by Dr. Baccard, they cover 63 pages. For all of
18 the reports, so it is one person going through the reports, drafted 63
19 pages of remarks. From a forensic point of view, if he concludes that
20 all those remarks do not amount to any significant changes to the
21 opinions provided by the experts previously, then I have no comment. If
22 there were so many remarks or objections they should have been dealt
23 with, with the teams working on the autopsies. It should be worked out
24 between them and Dr. Baccard.
25 There are examples, if I may, which I can quote, and I referred
1 to them in my expert report. Do you want me to be specific? But, for
2 example, have a look at page 101. I quote:
3 "The description of two entry and two exit wounds, that's a
4 remark. This was done by those who carried out the autopsy."
5 Then it says:
6 "During X-ray examination, it was ascertained that there were
7 four bullets."
8 This is a disastrous professional error. This is impermissible.
9 It is JBG 35/SR, page 10.
10 Q. Please stop, Professor, for the sake of our friends from the
11 Prosecution and the Chamber.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] What the doctor referred to was
13 page 101, but in the English version it is page 88. Could we please have
14 that on the screen so that everyone can see it. First page 101 and then
15 page 104.
16 Q. Is this what you were talking about?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Very well. The next page is 104 in the B/C/S spills over to page
19 105, and the English is page 91. What is this, Doctor?
20 A. These are the discrepancies between Dr. Baccard and the autopsy
21 team and their findings at Padalista. He states the following remarks:
22 "In all cases the date of death is wrong. No specific
23 methodology is referred to."
24 Next, wrong victim information. For example, Mihanc Imeraj it
25 says 19 years old in the report; and Mihanc Imeraj, 70 years of age in
1 the schedule -- 72 years of age. Feride Imeraj in the report, 8 years
2 old; and then Feride Imeraj, 21 years old in schedule E. Sabahat Imeraj,
3 a female in the report; and Sabahat Imeraj, a male in schedule E. Raba
4 Imeraj female in the report; and Rab Imeraj, a male in schedule E, and
5 Fatime Salibaj does not figure in schedule E or appendix E.
6 Q. Page 90.
7 A. But there is one more thing. Concerning Arijeta Imeraj [phoen],
8 the pathologist in the report states that the upper limbs were amputated,
9 and in the conclusions the reference is made to only one. This is
10 concerning Dr. Baccard's remarks.
11 Q. Page 90 -- sorry, 107 in the B/C/S and 93 in the English, the
12 same document of course.
13 A. This is the forensic analysis --
14 Q. Wait a minute, Doctor, let's wait for it to be put on the screen.
15 Go ahead.
16 A. In the summary Dr. Baccard states:
17 "The limited nature of this research is the result of poor
18 quality of the images obtained from this videotape whose definition is
19 very imperfect and does not allow an important enlargement of the
21 Next he says that:
22 "It is for these reasons that no finding can be deemed reliable.
23 Only diagnostic assumptions can be taken into account."
24 As far as I know, one cannot base evidence on assumptions. This
25 should not be accepted as such.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Next could we have page 25 in
3 the B/C/S and 23 in the English. We'll wait for the system. This is
4 Racak, that part of Dr. Baccard's report. Yes.
5 Q. Doctor, what can you tell us about the cause of death of the
6 bodies in Racak?
7 A. The report speaks of 40 bodies which were found and later on
8 analysed and that come from Racak; whereas, this report speaks of 64
9 causes of death, that is to say, that 40 persons have 64 causes of death.
10 One person can have only one cause of death, but not one and a half
11 causes of death. They cannot die from this and from that and have it
12 portrayed as this. So this is one illogical conclusion which is not the
13 only one by no means.
14 I remember that there was a similar situation in Srebrenica where
15 for 2.082 corpses there were 2700 causes of death. So this kind of
16 findings is unacceptable and illogical.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 27 in
19 B/C/S and page 25 in English, same document.
20 Q. How do you interpret the location of gun-shot wounds, or rather,
21 locations of entry wounds in the bodies found in Racak?
22 A. Based on the location of these wounds, one can speak of a
23 situation in which people who perished in Racak found -- were perished in
24 the area because this type of wounds that came from front and back and
25 from left and from right could only have been -- come under these
1 circumstances. I don't see a particular problem, bearing in mind that
2 such injuries are frequent with people who take part in combat.
3 Q. And what is your conclusion?
4 A. Without knowing any other information, witness statements and so
5 on, such injuries could have been inflicted on persons who were
6 surrounded and not persons who were executed only.
7 Q. Tell us, please, something about the paraffin test, which is
8 supposed to establish the presence of gunpowder particles. You saw in
9 the report that they did the paraffin test on the bodies found in Racak.
10 So please tell us about that method and about the findings in -- from
12 A. The paraffin test is normally performed by forensic technicians
13 and investigative organs in order to determine the presence of traces of
14 gunpowder explosion on the hands and palms in order to prove that there
15 are gunpowder traces there which had not burnt, and that enables us to
16 establish whether the person on whom the paraffin test was done fired
17 from a weapon or not. This paraffin glove test is done in all countries,
18 and the analysis of this test in our area is done with concentrated
19 sulfur acid and another chemical which are used to prove the presence of
20 certain chemicals. This method is not completely reliable, and it can
21 give positive results in all situations where a hand comes into contact
22 with a certain chemical. This is why this test is considered not
23 entirely reliable, and I think that back in 1968 at the Interpol congress
24 it was said that this test is one of auxiliary methods that can be used
25 to prove the presence of gunpowder particles but is not completely
1 reliable. The analysis with an electronic microscope is the only
2 acceptable method and the only safe method that can prove the presence of
3 unburnt gunpowder particles. In our particular case we used the paraffin
4 test with concentrated sulfur acid and another chemical, but as I said,
5 it is not a completely reliable test, and if we do have a positive
6 finding, that is not certain yet that the person did, in fact, fire.
7 Q. Do you know on how many bodies this test was performed? Can you
8 give us any conclusions concerning that?
9 A. No, I don't have findings on that issue.
10 Q. Doctor, how did you see that there was a body without a head?
11 A. Based on the summaries that one saw in evidence, it doesn't
12 follow that there was a single body that was headless. I have to
13 reiterate that in all cases in bodies of Racak the cause of death was
14 linked to gun-shot wounds. However, there is a sentence indicating that
15 in about 20 per cent of bodies there were visible traces of post mortem
16 activity of animals, but there are no descriptions, further descriptions,
17 concerning this. So all I can say is what I have just told you.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
20 put another question before we make our break. It's page 96, 97, 98, and
21 99 in B/C/S, and pages 83, 84, 85, and 86 in English.
22 Q. Are there significant discrepancies or differences in the
23 findings of Serbian and Ukrainian pathologists on the one hand and the
24 Finnish pathologists report when it comes to findings from Racak?
25 A. There are two types of discrepancies: One is acceptable and one
1 isn't. The discrepancies are differences of cause of death can be found
2 in 16 cases. I don't think that this is a major discrepancy or a major
3 difference. For example, if we look at 6-7023F in the Finnish report it
4 is stated that the cause of death is the fracture of aorta and the
5 bleeding that resulted in the chest. The Serbian team said something
6 very very similar, although it was phrased in different terms. So I
7 don't think that that's a major difference or a major discrepancy.
8 However, there is another kind of differences or discrepancies which is
9 significant, and that is the one in the description of gun-shot wounds
10 and their number on the bodies of victims, and it exists in 11 cases, as
11 many as 11. Given that both these teams were present on the site, they
12 should have given their joint opinion or joint finding on this, including
13 this discrepancy in the number of wounds on bodies which is quite
14 significant. It is not up to me now to say who was right, but this is a
15 significant discrepancy that exists in these two reports.
16 Q. Before we break I would like to bring to your attention that
17 there is a mistake in the transcript. It shouldn't be Serbian and
18 Russian team rather than -- it should be Serbian and Belarus, Belorussian
19 team, so not -- it should be Serbian and Belorussian team.
20 Now could we see 54 -- or P524 --
21 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues]... time.
22 Can this wait until after the break?
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Yes.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We'll have the second break now and
25 resume at five minutes past 1.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 1.08 p.m.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE PARKER: While we wait for the witness, could I mention one
5 matter. During the break a consideration was being given to the written
6 submissions about the admissibility of a video. The DVD with which we've
7 been presented discloses only a few very short clips, whereas the
8 submissions in part at least are dealing with a video of some 30 minutes
9 of length. Can it be clear what it is that is being tendered, whether it
10 is just the short clips or the full video, and is the -- if it's only the
11 short clips, is the Chamber to have regard to the whole video for the
12 purpose of assessing, for example, some of the Defence objections that
13 it's clearly inconsistent in photography and location and so forth.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE PARKER: I mention that now. You may need to think about
16 it and please confirm at a later time if you're not ready to confirm now
17 just what is intended. But at the moment there's an inconsistency
18 between what we're offered as the exhibit and the submissions and our
19 understanding of what it was about. Thank you.
20 If you could continue, Mr. Djordjevic.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 [Interpretation] Could we please see Exhibit P454, the title page
23 of this report. P454. Thank you.
24 Q. Doctor, have you had an occasion to review this report?
25 A. Yes, I reviewed this report too.
1 Q. Thank you. I will first ask you whether by examining this
2 report, did you also have a chance to see the CV of Jose Pablo-Baraybar?
3 A. Yes, I had the occasion to review his CV.
4 Q. Thank you. As you also hold an academic title, do you know that
5 there is an exam in the studies of archaeology that has something to do
6 with medical education. Did you notice in Jose Pablo-Baraybar's CV the
7 information that he took a part of the exam that had to do with medical
8 knowledge apart from archaeology?
9 A. On the basis of this section of CV which is admitted into
10 evidence, it turns out that he did not take a single medical exam while
11 he was studying archaeology at a social sciences faculty.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see page 3
13 of this document in B/C/S and also page 3 in the English version.
14 Q. This is what it looks like in e-court. On the hard copy the
15 number is lower, it's page 2. In the paper copy that you have but in
16 e-court we have page 3 both in B/C/S and English.
17 Does forensic anthropology require some sort of medical
19 A. From this material I will quote something from page 2, a section
20 that says:
21 "Therefore, forensic anthropology applies the medically based
22 study of the human skeleton's development in the legally oriented
23 contents of the criminal proceedings."
24 What follows from this is that dealing with forensic anthropology
25 implies the necessary university level medical education. From what
1 Mr. Baraybar has written, that's what follows from that.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see page 9 in
4 B/C/S and page 9 in English as well.
5 Q. Professor, once again we see some assumptions here as well as
6 some conclusions. Can you give us a comment on this.
7 A. In this part of the report it says, I'm quoting:
8 "It is assumed that the gun-shot wound happened at the moment of
9 death. This is why this is considered to be the cause of death."
10 As I said earlier, no single proof can be based on assumption but
11 on material traces. This way of understanding and interpreting things
12 like gun-shot wounds and cause of death is something that is
14 Q. All right. If we look at page 2 -- page 8 of the same document,
15 I think it's the same in both languages, please have a look at what is
16 stated about the cause of death, the injury of the shoulder or of the
17 thigh bone. Can you just briefly comment on that.
18 A. Well, it follows from the previous conclusion. It says that the
19 gun-shot wound which caused complex injuries to the body, the shoulder
20 wound, the humerus and femur would have compromised the brachial and
21 femoral arteries leading to death following severe blood loss."
22 We know from experience that the injuries to the femur and
23 humerus by gun-shot wounds do not always necessarily cause injury to
24 brachial and femoral arteries. So it's another assumption which is not
25 founded on medical knowledge.
1 Q. All right. Could we please see page 11 in both versions. Please
2 let us wait for the English text to appear. Could you please comment as
3 you have commented here about the establishing of the causes of death
4 done by Serbian forensic experts and the OMPF as Mr. Baraybar was at the
5 head of this.
6 A. From these reports of forensic teams and the conclusions which
7 forensic medical experts have drawn, one can see, at least in my opinion,
8 and also judging by what is usually done in our country, is that many of
9 them would go within the remit of work of a judge or the prosecutor's
10 office. It seems that at every moment they're trying to say what they're
11 not requested to say and what they're not certain about. Things such as
12 the cause of death and everything else connected with the death of a
13 person after the examination of forensic medical experts is something
14 that he should describe. When there are elements to say something
15 decidedly, he is obliged to do that. However, if a forensic medical
16 expert only receives mortal remains in which he can register certain
17 injuries to the bones but there is no soft tissue anymore as these are
18 bodies in which during the putrefaction the soft tissue has been lost,
19 then the person in question can only express his opinion on what has been
20 found. On the basis of all the other materials such as the statements of
21 witnesses and criminal technical examination and so on, the truth is to
22 be established. But I think that here these kind of conclusions are not
23 acceptable. It is the sort of attitude that I could not support at any
24 expert meeting.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see page 12 in
2 both languages now, though a part of the English text overflows onto page
3 13. But let's see page 12 in both versions first, please, let's just
4 wait briefly. We have it in B/C/S now, and here it is in English.
5 Q. How do you interpret the lack of correspondence between the
6 opinion of the Serbian forensic experts and the OMPF experts in the case
7 of the body of Ba-12, that's Lirie Berisha?
8 A. I think that one of the shortcomings of the forensic experience
9 contributes to the fact that some of the injuries are interpreted, let me
10 not say arbitrarily, but on the basis of what other people do or what we
11 saw or didn't see. In this specific case I would ask for these parts of
12 a skull to be shown --
13 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] If we could see page 13 in the
14 English, please, we can see these parts of the skull. Should we zoom in?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We can use this one and then we
16 shall see.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] All right. Can you please zoom
18 in the photos, please.
19 Q. Please go ahead.
20 A. In this photograph we can see the bones of the base of the skull,
21 and in the area of the back of the head you can see a bone defect which
22 the -- those who were doing the autopsy they described it in their
23 report. They mentioned the diameter, and they claimed that it was an
24 injury caused by a projectile and that it looks like a keyhole. If we
25 know that the so-called keyhole injury's caused when a -- in the bones of
1 the roof of the skull primarily in the section where the bones are
2 protruding, then we can see what they say here. Where does this
3 projectile go when it leaves the skull? This is what we can see in the
4 left parietal area. So if we take the spine then this is maybe 7 or 8
5 centimetres from the surface of soft tissues in the neck. So therefore
6 the injury in the soft tissues which are described here would have to be
7 there; however, this injury has not been registered. There should also
8 be the injury to the vertebra and considering that it moves from left to
9 the right and from the back to the right simultaneously and that's not
10 here. Then the defect -- the injury's also described as having the
11 shape, as you can see, and as one can calculate as there is a special
12 technique used for that, that it is 4 and a half centimetres long and up
13 to 0.6 centimetres wide. I'm not sure what sort of projectile could
14 cause this kind of damage or this kind of bone defect. If we also see
15 that the bones of the roof of the skull, that a defect in the bones is
16 also registered there and that its diameter is 9.5 by 7.5 centimetres and
17 that in these sections of the bones damage caused by fire has also been
18 registered, then it seems quite certain that this injury was caused in
19 some different manner. In such a situation I believe that the opinions
20 should be harmonised because this is a typical example, and then leave it
21 to those carrying out the autopsy, the forensic experts, to have a
22 conference and then try to settle this dilemma. In my opinion, this is
23 not a keyhole injury, considering that the head was burnt, that the area
24 where the mortal remains were found included traces of projectiles that
25 were never shot. It's possible that there was an explosion and that some
1 of the hard materials or traces of projectiles did cause this sort of
2 injury, but in any case, I do not think that this is the keyhole wound or
3 a gun-shot wound, considering everything that I have just stated.
4 Q. Thank you. My next question has to do with page 15 in B/C/S and
5 page 17 in the English version, so could we please see them on the
6 screen. My question is: What is your opinion when you compare the
7 gun-shot wounds in bodies that were exhumed in Serbia with those who were
8 killed, for example, we can see the Afghanistan
9 War? What is this about, Doctor, can you please comment on this?
10 A. Well, the war conflict in the territory of Kosovo
11 significantly different in character from the war conflict in
13 used in the respective territories. In the territories that are
14 discussed here, Cambodia
15 was used. In the armed conflicts in Kosovo, the only weapons which were
16 used were hand-held fire-arms and also mines and explosives which
17 belonged to the police. Under such circumstances, considering that the
18 selection of weapons was limited, sometimes these were hand-held mortars,
19 then I don't think it is instructive to compare such wars and the
20 injuries sustained by people in these territories with those who were
21 killed in Kosovo primarily because of the different weapons used in these
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have D64 put on
25 the screen.
1 Q. Doctor, have you seen this report?
2 A. Yes, I have.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have page 3 in the
5 B/C/S and in the English.
6 Q. Please look at the conclusion in which there is a link made
7 between the injuries and cause of death. What do you think of these
9 A. I think I've provided an answer already concerning the previous
10 report, and this is reflected in that document as well. To me this is
11 unacceptable. It is based on a presumption. It says:
12 "Due to the impossibility of determining whether gun-shot
13 injuries had been inflicted immediately prior to or after the death of
14 the victim, it was assumed that the gun-shot injuries occurred at the
15 time of death and therefore contributed to it. Any other assumption
16 would have made the examination of the remains totally meaningless."
17 This is contrary to what I was taught. In my view, this is an
18 impermissible way to draw a conclusion such as this.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we go to page 10, please,
21 in the B/C/S and 9 in the English.
22 Q. Professor, again we have rib injuries. I wanted to hear your
23 comment about the mechanism of such injuries.
24 A. It says here that the rib fractures could have been caused by
25 direct impact or pressure exercised on the rib-cage. I agree with that.
1 However, I also must say that such injuries can also occur after a fall
2 on a blunt and uneven object or surface at the location where the body
3 was found or where the injury occurred. I must say that annually I
4 provide expert opinion in about 400 cases. For the most part it has to
5 do with traffic accidents. Such indirect injuries, i.e., rib fractures,
6 can also be seen in cases of impact which needn't necessarily be a direct
7 impact but, for example, can occur during a crash between two vehicles or
8 between a vehicle and a pedestrian. So one needs to add to this that
9 such rib injuries could have been caused by falling and hitting blunt and
10 uneven objects and surfaces.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we go to page 12 in the
13 B/C/S and 11 in the English.
14 Q. Doctor, please give us your opinion on the conclusions arrived at
15 by your colleagues -- I apologise, by Mr. Baraybar and his team
16 concerning the fractures.
17 A. In that part of the report it says:
18 "Injuries to ribs and to the tibia as well as the lower leg
19 occurred sometime before death, as demonstrated by the presence of
20 reactive new bone formation."
21 In my book it means that there was a fracture registered which
22 occurred a few days before death. Then the presence of new bone
23 formation associated with the injuries indicates post traumatic survival
24 and it is, therefore, suggested that the injuries were not inflicted to
25 kill but to persecute the victims. What is this founded on? What is
1 this based on? This is completely arbitrary. For new bone formation to
2 come about, for a bone to begin healing, time is required. It takes at
3 least ten days to be able to observe this new bone formation or scalus
4 [phoen] as expertly referred to. If there had been an injury, a fracture
5 on this person and then that person was kept for another ten days before
6 he or she was killed and if no medical assistance was given, then one
7 needs to have further proof of that. Otherwise, to conclude a thing like
8 that forensically and medically speaking is impermissible.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we he have page 22 in the
11 B/C/S and 19 in the English version.
12 Q. This is case number 12000/0256. Just below the picture we see it
13 says figure 6a probable gun-shot wound through left scapula. He we'll
14 see that. And on page 24 in the B/C/S, since we already saw these bone
15 fragments, and page 21 in the English, it is stated that the cause of
16 death were multiple gun-shot wounds to the chest and pelvis. Can you
18 A. Well, I may bore everyone if I repeat yet again that a conclusion
19 must come from what was previously stated in the findings. In this case
20 the findings describe something else. It says "probable gun-shot
21 injury," and after that without any hedge whatsoever it is stated that
22 the multiple gun-shot wounds to the chest and pelvis were the cause of
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Page 28 in the B/C/S and 25 in
1 the English next. Let's wait for the one in the B/C/S.
2 Q. Here we have an injury to the denture -- to the dentition as well
3 as everything that refers to case NN 8 1000. Can you please comment.
4 A. It is claimed here that the broken or damaged dentition occurred
5 in a number of the teeth and that there was axial loading through the
6 mandible by which the upper and lower teeth impacted against a hard
7 object put into the mouth, which is what caused these fractures. This
8 probably occurred ante mortem. This also needs further proof. If there
9 was a hard object in the mouth which was placed between the teeth, and
10 then if someone was hitting the soft tissues, specifically upper and
11 lower jaw, then there must have been injuries to the soft tissue, such as
12 bruises or abrasions on the skin, which are otherwise not observed if
13 there are no soft tissues. However, since there is only a thin layer of
14 soft tissue such bruises spread and can be clearly visible because they
15 would cover and colour the area of the lower jaw or the upper jaw. It is
16 only in such a case a conclusion as this could be valid. Otherwise, this
17 is not based on any material evidence.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have P799.
20 Q. Professor, para 1 of this page of your report is on page 16 in
21 the English and 20 of your hard copy report. This paragraph 1 was
22 deleted. Please do bear in mind that. We'll skip this part since it was
23 redacted. Let's wait for the next page of the document.
24 Did you have an opportunity to see this?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Page 20 in the B/C/S and 17 in
2 the English, please, of this document. This is Antonio Alonso in the
3 B/C/S, please, as well. Thank you.
4 Q. Is the number of autopsies of mortal remains identical to the
5 number of those identified by DNA analysis? I have in mind the findings
6 between K048-5493 to K048-5519, page 1. I think you know what I am
7 referring to.
8 A. There is a drastic difference between the number of the
9 allegedly -- of the alleged bodies for which autopsies were carried out
10 for which the experts determined that were the mortal remains of 55
11 individuals. However, DNA analysis indicated that this number was not as
12 great, or rather, that there were only 41 persons. This is rather
13 embarrassing for those who worked on the bodies of the victims.
14 Q. Are there any other conclusions concerning this, Professor?
15 A. The difference, the discrepancy, between the number of
16 individuals is something which is indicative of the corpse examination.
17 Q. What does it speak of?
18 A. Well, it may bring into question the expertise of the people
20 Q. Thank you. Can people whose mortal remains who were never
21 located be considered war victims solely on the basis of witness
23 A. I must say that under our circumstances one needs to be realistic
24 and careful about that. I cannot remember the name of a person whose
25 name is on the monument in Srebrenica. In any case, six or seven years
1 later that same person was found alive in Sremska Mitrovica living and
2 working there. Then Amida Sevdic [phoen] who was born on 7 January 1972
3 in Skelani near Srebrenica allegedly went missing on the 12th of July,
4 1995, on her way from Srebrenica to Tuzla. However, nowadays she lives
5 in Arilje as Slavica Stefanovic, and by decision of the basic court in
6 Srebrenica dated the 20th of February, 2008 she was declared dead. There
7 are other examples like that, but I believe that in such circumstances as
8 those prevailing in the territory of the former Yugoslavia one needs to
9 be very careful when pronouncing anyone a war victim and when there are
10 no mortal remains involved. Of course such a person should be considered
11 as someone who had gone missing in the war. There was also the case of
12 Slobodan Letica, a person who was killed in a traffic accident in Vukovar
13 in 1996 -- sorry, in 1986. He then allegedly became a war victim in
14 Vukovar in 1991. We submitted a report which the UN later on marked as
15 their own about that very issue. There are other examples like that.
16 All this needs to be kept in mind. I also quoted the findings from
17 Padalista, where they verified that there was a victim who subsequently
18 did not have his or her name included on the victims list.
19 Q. Thank you. My last question concerning your report: Did you
20 notice the use of certain terms or lingo which is not in keeping with the
21 professional terminology concerning the report by Antonio Alonso?
22 A. There is a word "massacre" mentioned in his report, which is not
23 to be used by geneticist and molecular biologists because this is not a
24 topic of their research. It was used in some preliminary documents and
25 in the report itself, which is, to a certain extent, acceptable having in
1 mind the role of a biogeneticists in this case.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this concludes our
4 examination-in-chief of expert Stankovic. We would like to thank him for
5 coming here to discuss his report before the Chamber. We also seek to
6 tender his report into evidence, the redacted version. It is D011-5432.
7 To repeat, it was redacted pursuant to your -- Their Honours
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Djordjevic. That report
10 will be received.
11 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit D00926, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
13 Doctor, we have to adjourn now because another court uses this
14 courtroom in the afternoon, so we must continue tomorrow morning at 9.00.
15 A court officer will assist you out, and we look forward to continuing
16 your evidence tomorrow morning.
17 We now adjourn.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
19 to be reconvened on Friday, the 26th day of
20 March, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.