Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 13406

 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

20     name.

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?

Page 13407

 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, following which I was sent to the garrison in Pec, in

13     Kosovo.  After that I was given a residency training in the field of

14     forensic medicine in Belgrade at the military medical academy in

15     Belgrade, where I remained after completing my residency training and

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

19     Serbia.  And after leaving that office I served as minister of defence

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.

Page 13408

 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

 6     Yugoslavia.  The first large mass grave that I worked on was in Vukovar.

 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.  I

11     also worked in Knin, in Oranica [phoen], and some other places.  As for

12     Bosnia, I worked in the entire area of Eastern Bosnia, Zvornik, Kravice,

13     Srebrenica, Vlasenica, Sarajevo, Ugljevik, Brcko, and some other

14     locations.  I also worked in Herzegovina, in Bileca, Nevesinje, Trebinje,

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 and

24     in Belgrade.  In addition to that, I wrote some 30 papers about my work

25     and activities in this field.  I was also an invited speaker in the

Page 13409

 1     parliaments of Great Britain and parliament of Ukraine as well as in

 2     various other institutions in London, Cambridge, Paris, Budapest.  I was

 3     invited to come and give lectures in The Hague, Amsterdam, and Utrecht,

 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

13     D011-5432.

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

22     Chamber.

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

Page 13410

 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 participated in this work.  Could you please comment on

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

Page 13411

 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

17     performed.

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

Page 13412

 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."

Page 13413

 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

Page 13414

 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

Page 13415

 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 --

Page 13416

 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.

Page 13417

 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

21     between.

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

Page 13418

 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.

Page 13419

 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

Page 13420

 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

Page 13421

 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

 3     answer.

 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

Page 13422

 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

Page 13423

 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

16     findings.

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

Page 13424

 1     page.

 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

18     unlikely.

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

Page 13425

 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.

Page 13426

 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:

Page 13427

 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

Page 13428

 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.

Page 13429

 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

12     well?

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 and the Government of Serbia, as we have heard,

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 of

Page 13430

 1     Yugoslavia and Serbia, including Kosovo and Metohija?

 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

13     time.

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.

Page 13431

 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,

19     please.

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

Page 13432

 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.

Page 13433

 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

 3     earlier?

 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

Page 13434

 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?

Page 13435

 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,

Page 13436

 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

Page 13437

 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

Page 13438

 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

15     injuries.

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

Page 13439

 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,

Page 13440

 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

Page 13441

 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

Page 13442

 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

Page 13443

 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."

Page 13444

 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

Page 13445

 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

Page 13446

 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

Page 13447

 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

Page 13448

 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

15     unacceptable.

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

Page 13449

 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

 9     executions.

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

17     site?

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

Page 13450

 1     persons allegedly killed does not correspond to what the finding

 2     suggests.

 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

Page 13451

 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,

Page 13452

 1     you had a chance to see video marked as --

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters didn't hear the number of the

 3     video.

 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

Page 13453

 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

12     injuries?

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.

Page 13454

 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.

Page 13455

 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

Page 13456

 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

 9     this?

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.

Page 13457

 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

Page 13458

 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

Page 13459

 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

10     Switzerland, Finland, Belarus, Serbia, et cetera?

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 as well

13     as in Croatia and in other locations where there were consequences of the

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

24     methodology.

25        Q.   Could you single out any of the applied methodologies as

Page 13460

 1     specific?

 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

Page 13461

 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

Page 13462

 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

20     details."

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.

Page 13463

 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

Page 13464

 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

11     Racak.

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

Page 13465

 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

Page 13466

 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.

Page 13467

 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.

Page 13468

 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

18     knowledge?

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

Page 13469

 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

13     unacceptable.

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.

Page 13470

 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.

Page 13471

 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

Page 13472

 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

Page 13473

 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, Cambodia, or the Gulf

 9     War?  What is this about, Doctor, can you please comment on this?

10        A.   Well, the war conflict in the territory of Kosovo was

11     significantly different in character from the war conflict in

12     Afghanistan, Cambodia, or the Gulf War, considering the weapons that were

13     used in the respective territories.  In the territories that are

14     discussed here, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and the Gulf War, heavy weaponry

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

22     conflicts.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have D64 put on

25     the screen.

Page 13474

 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

 8     conclusions?

 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.

Page 13475

 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

Page 13476

 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

17     comment?

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

23     death.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Page 28 in the B/C/S and 25 in

Page 13477

 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.

Page 13478

 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

19     involved.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Can people whose mortal remains who were never

21     located be considered war victims solely on the basis of witness

22     statements?

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

Page 13479

 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

Page 13480

 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

 8     instructions.

 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.