1 Tuesday, 30 July 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in the courtroom and those
6 supporting us just outside the courtroom.
7 Madam Registrar would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
9 Stanislav Galic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Mr. Ierace.
12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, if it is convenient to the Court,
13 might we interpose Ewa Tabeau at 11.00?
14 JUDGE ORIE: I would like you to take into account in your
15 scheduling that if any protective measures should be put in place that
16 you do that at least immediately after a relatively long break, because
17 that will take some time. If -- there is no final decision on that
18 because we indicated what the Chamber would like to see and then we got
19 the information that a witness would not be available, so there is no
20 final decision on that. But I think there is no problem to hear
21 Ewa Tabeau, but in the scheduling of time, you should take care that not,
22 for example, start with Ewa Tabeau for quarter of an hour and then
23 immediately go to a witness who is -- who needs half an hour of
25 MR. IERACE: I understand. I think that can be avoided,
1 Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, sir, I would like to
4 present my apologies to you because we proceeded very slowly yesterday,
5 but it appeared that with reference to some Prosecution documents we did
6 not follow the so-called anti-contamination rule that we normally apply.
7 As to the expert, Mr. Higgs, the Prosecution had asked the expert not to
8 take account of the witness account of the ABC and BC witnesses --
9 incidents in particular. Now in his report, in certain paragraphs, he
10 refers to them quite extensively --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin I think we gave yesterday the
12 decisions on the admission to evidence. It is your intention to reopen
13 argument on whether these documents should have been admitted into
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I
16 believe that that document should be admitted as evidence, but always,
17 according to the usual formula, in order to avoid any contamination as it
18 were, the passages --
19 JUDGE ORIE: You are at this moment, reopening --
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: It would have been proper to ask permission to do so
22 because it is not entirely up to the parties to reopen at any stage a
23 debate which concerns a decision already given. And we will then consider
24 whether such an opportunity will be given or not.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So I do understand that you would like to reopen
2 argument especially, on those parts of the report of Mr. Higgs that
3 relates to the witnesses that have been excluded in the questioning. Yes.
4 Okay, that is clear.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I do apologise.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We will consider whether an opportunity will be
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will apologise again.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any other procedural issue, if not,
10 Mr. Usher, would you please escort Mr. Gavrankapetanovic into the
12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, just while that is happening, again,
13 we have problems with our LiveNote. I wonder whether a technician could
14 attend to it during the evidence, I have no objection to that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if that would be possible. Mine is functioning,
16 I don't know why.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 WITNESS: FARIS GAVRANKAPETANOVIC [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Gavrankapetanovic.
21 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: May I remind you that you are still bound by the
23 solemn declaration you gave at the beginning of your testimony.
24 Then, please proceed.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you Mr. President. With your leave,
1 Mr. President I would like to show the witness premarked Exhibit P3737 C.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: English translation P3737 C.1. They have been
4 premarked so I hope it won't cause the confusion that happened yesterday.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Just for reference again, the ERN numbers are on
7 every alternate page.
8 Examined by Mr. Sachdeva: [Continued]
9 Q. Doctor, do you see your signature on this document?
10 A. Yes. 02156613, if that is the one you are referring to.
11 Q. And do you see your signature on every page which has numbers on
12 the top right-hand corner?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. For the moment, I would like you to ignore the content of the
15 document. If you could look at the top typed headings, and if you see
16 that there are typed headings and there are handwritten words on top of
17 those typed headings can you explain this to the Court.
18 A. Yes. If you are referring to the typed headings, it must be the
19 form from a construction company, actually, since the references are to
20 the building worker, the destruction or pulling down of houses. But
21 those typed headings have been crossed, out and then there are
22 handwritten headings in capital letters referring to the name and
23 surname, the place of death.
24 Q. If I may take you back one second. Can you tell the Court which
25 document this is, where does it come from?
1 A. This register after the handwritten headings, comes from the
2 morgue of the clinic of the university centre in Sarajevo.
3 Q. Is that the morgue at Kosevo Hospital?
4 A. Yes. As I clarified yesterday. There are two names, the one I
5 myself mentioned originally and the other one which is Bonica [phoen]
7 Q. Thank you. If you can now go through the document and if you
8 could tell the Court whether you see entries for the following dates:
9 The 22nd of January 1994?
10 A. Yes, I do, in the beginning.
11 Q. The 12th of July 1993?
12 A. The 12th, the 13th, yes, I can see that. July 1993.
13 Q. The 1st of June 1993?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And the 4th and the 5th of February 1994?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 Does this document correspond to the original that is kept at
19 your institution?
20 A. Yes, it does.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: Might that document be removed from the witness.
23 With your leave, Mr. President, I would like to show the witness
24 a final document, it is marked P3737D. English translation, P3737D.1.
25 Q. Witness, do you see your signature on this document?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And can you read out the name of the person on top of the
4 A. If it is 02115962, if that is page 1 the name is Franic Ivan, the
5 year of both is 1930.
6 Q. Thank you. And what type of document is this?
7 A. In this particular case, this is a letter of discharge from the
8 abdominal urology department where the patient had been treated.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Sachdeva, just in order to avoid whatever
10 confusion, the witness just mentioned the ERN number that is stricken
11 out. I take that it is 02156580. That is the number not stricken
12 out on the document.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: That is correct, Mr. President, yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And then I have to apologise, yesterday I said that
15 this document would have the same number, but ending at 86, and I said
16 that not similar numbers should be put on documents, but in the
17 subsequent order of numbering of this document, I must have made a
18 mistake yesterday, although it is very difficult to read. It should be
19 eight zero last two digits, instead of what I said yesterday, eight six.
20 Please proceed.
21 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Mr. Sachdeva, just for clarification, I
22 cannot see the witness signature. Well, I don't know which of this
23 signatures is that.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Maybe the document can be put on the ELMO.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The one with the date.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: For the record, the witness points out his
2 signature on the bottom left-hand corner on the first page of the
4 Q. Finally, is this document a copy of an original from your
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President. No further questions.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Is -- first, thank you, Mr. Sachdeva.
9 Is the Defence ready to cross-examine the witness? Then, please proceed,
10 Ms. Pilipovic.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Cross-examined by Ms. Pilipovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Gavrankapetanovic, good morning.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 On the 11th of October, 2001, you made a statement to the
17 Prosecution. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. On that occasion, you handed in a certain number of medical files
20 and hospital documents. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When you say "copies" could you tell us whether those files were
23 the ones you selected yourself or whether you were asked to hand in
24 certain types of documents? In other words, what were you asked to hand
1 A. I can't tell you exactly what I was asked to do, because I was
2 asked from the service that I am responsible for. It was asked from the
3 staff in charge of the register to hand in certain files and to photocopy
4 them in the presence of the official from the municipal authorities, in
5 this case the centre of Sarajevo where the hospital is situated. So a
6 municipal official was always present and he confirmed that the originals
7 were handed in and then for the first time, these documents were signed
8 by the person who acted as the director of surgical -- of the surgical
9 department. And on all documents, apart from the one relating to the
10 morgue you can see that they bear the signature of that person, followed
11 by my own signature.
12 Q. When your service photocopied the originals that you say you have
13 in your possession, can you tell us what files were asked for and with
14 reference to what dates? In other words, were you asked to provide
15 documentation with reference to certain dates and, if so, which ones?
16 A. I can't tell you that because I myself was not in touch with
17 anyone from the Tribunal at the time. I was simply given the documents
18 with reference to which I could tell that they were in line with the
19 originals and so I signed them. And I looked at the dates later.
20 Q. Okay, Doctor, you are telling us that at the time when you were
21 presented with the medical files from the hospital that you manage, you
22 had no knowledge of the dates that the documents were relating to?
23 A. I thought they asked for documents for the entire period, between
24 1992 and 1995.
25 Q. And later on, did you find out from your staff what dates these
1 files referred to?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And what did they tell you?
4 A. I think it was about a couple of dates. Later on when I look at
5 this, I can repeat it was the 31st of May, and the 1st of June 1993, the
6 12th and the 13th of July 1993, I think it was 20th and 21st of January
7 1994 and the 4th and 5th of February 1994.
8 Q. Yesterday you told us about the document that you yourself
9 identified as the document listing the names of persons who were supposed
10 to have been injured at Markale.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like Mr. Gavrankapetanovic
12 to be shown the document ERN the last two digits are 6530. It was I
13 believe the first document that my learned colleague submitted yesterday.
14 I think he even referred to the full number, but at this present moment, I
15 can't think of it. The first three -- four digits are 6530. And it was
16 the first document -- it is a typed text.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that it was not presented yesterday
18 by the Prosecution, but we will try to retrieve it.
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour I did get that,
20 because I have two copies.
21 JUDGE ORIE: You got it, but it has not been tendered. It has
22 been given as a bundle so that we would not need extra time but it has not
23 been presented as far as I understand.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: That is correct, Mr. President
25 THE REGISTRAR: Ms. Pilipovic, can you please repeat the ERN
1 number, the beginning and the end number.
2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] 02156530.
3 THE REGISTRAR: And the last number?
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't have the -- on that page,
5 we have another ERN, the last four digits, 6010, and the very last
6 number on this document is 6032 -- just a minute. 6631.
7 JUDGE ORIE: The easy way of doing it, can you just show us how
8 it looks like to us. Even if you just put it this way so that we can see
9 what it is approximately. Yes, I see.
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Gavrankapetanovic, you see before you a list which has been
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have it on the ELMO so that there is no
15 possible misunderstanding. Mr. Usher, could you then please turn the
16 ELMO so that Mr. Gavrankapetanovic will not twist his -- yes.
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Gavrankapetanovic, could you tell us, please, who made this
20 A. Which number do you mean? What do you mean?
21 Q. I have before me ERN 6530 in the top of the page?
22 A. That's not it.
23 Q. On the top of the document it says "Markale 5th of February
24 1994." It is 02156530.
25 A. I don't think that's the one. As much as I can see here, I don't
1 have this document.
2 Q. Do you see before you a document which the first page begins with
3 the number 6530?
4 A. I have 630654622.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness's microphone be switched on,
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please switch on both
8 microphones of the witness.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not the one.
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. 6530.
12 A. 6536. A six is at the end.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It is not the right number. Mr. Usher, could you
14 please give the whole bundle to the Registrar so that --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I can't see 6530. I have 36
16 here, if that is the one.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The bundle will be returned to the Registrar.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] This document which the Defence
19 has, 6536, that has the serial number 20. That is the sixth page of the
20 document and the very first page of that bundle is the first page being
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher could you please leave the bundle as it
23 is and put the top page on the -- yes, there we are.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, that is the document
25 which I wanted Mr. Gavrankapetanovic to see.
1 Q. Mr. Gavrankapetanovic, do you recognise this document?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could you tell us, who wrote on the top of this page "Markale,
4 5th of February 1994"?
5 A. You mean handwritten?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. I can't tell you that, but I can see that it is written
8 "Markale" and I believe further on with a typewriter, but I can clarify
9 the document. This is one page out of the registration book, the
10 logbook, and it was written in -- it was handwritten, the logbook, and
11 yesterday we were able to see logbook pages which were handwritten. This
12 part which was typed, I presume that the then general manager on that
13 day, that is on the 5th of February 1994, when we are talking about
14 Markale considering that there was an enormous number of dead and
15 wounded, he -- and considering large-scale panic in the city, he, what he
16 had to do, he had to take out from the main logbook only those persons
17 who were injured at Markale market. Taking into account that on that
18 day, just like on any other days, there were injured persons coming from
19 other locations in the city. So what I presumed that happened is that
20 this part was retyped and that it had been posted, had been put on wall,
21 on several occasions in the hospital in front of the mortuary on boards,
22 around the hospital, because there was a lot of panic and there was an
23 interest of the media and so on.
24 Q. Doctor, if we can just clarify this document, who compiled this
1 A. I presume this list was compiled by the service, consisting of
2 medical technicians, nurses and other staff, administrative staff, by the
3 order of the general management, so as to announce it publicly who was
4 injured and who died on the 5th of February 1994.
5 Q. So if I understand you correctly, you are telling us that this
6 document was compiled immediately following 5th of February 1994?
7 A. Yes. And during the 5th of February 1994, this was a way of
8 informing the public about what had happened.
9 Q. Could you tell us in the bottom right corner there are two
11 A. Yes. You mean whose they are?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. I had already pointed to my signature, that is the first one,
14 with the date, 11th of January 2002, and the second signature, when we
15 are talking about the name, that is deputy general manager of surgical
16 medicine, who before me, had signed all of the medication -- all of the
17 documentation in relation to the surgical department. And there is also
18 my signature and his in relation to any surgical treatment, except for
19 the mortuary where there is my signature. And this person here is
20 Dr. Emis Solakovic [phoen] he was the deputy. So with my signature, there
21 is also Dr. Solakovic's signature.
22 Q. Dr. Gavrankapetanovic are you telling us the original of this
23 document, this document consists in your institution?
24 A. Yes, we keep all the originals.
25 Q. Specifically this document, which is a copy, does it exist
1 containing the list of other people registered in your logbook?
2 A. No, this was only done when there was mass injury involved. It
3 was in relation to Markale and probably some other incidents, large-scale
4 injuries, which is when relatives, friends, were not able to get in to
5 the clinical centre, the emergency centre because it was practically
6 closed. That is when lists would be put up on different locations, at
7 the centre, so that friends and relatives and others could find out about
8 the names and surnames of those people injured.
9 Q. Doctor on this document, I will notice on other documents, we
10 can see that it was signed on the 11th of January 2002?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you told us in your statement of the 11th of October 2001
13 that you had handed over all the copies?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Could you please clarify?
16 A. In the very -- to start with, what you asked me to start with, I
17 did not sign a single logbook. It had been signed by the deputy manager
18 of general surgery and this is the signature below. And after that, some
19 two months afterwards, I was asked to sign each one of these documents,
20 which is what I did. And I signed always with a date so that I would
21 know exactly whether I had signed.
22 Q. So what you are telling us, that was on the 11th of February 2002?
23 A. No 11th of January 2002.
24 Q. 2002. On this document that you see before you, we can see on
25 page one which begins under serial number one, when we see that date and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 hour of admission, we see about 12 hours. Are you confirming that this
2 was typed with a typewriter?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. From number one to number 101, the Defence saw that it says that
5 it was typed-written about 1200 hours and then from 100 to 105 and I
6 believe that would be page which has no ERN number but it comes after
7 6549 which begins with 101. We can see that on this document the hour of
8 admission is 12.30?
9 A. You mean written in hand?
10 Q. Yes, could you please explain why is it that here for 100
11 numbers, 100 patients it was typed about 12 and then it was written in
13 A. Yes. In the main logbook that we saw in fact in its copy which
14 was properly certificated and signed, you can see that hour of admission
15 was 12.35. These patients certainly could not come within 60 seconds, but
16 they did come in very quick succession. This time around 12.00, this is
17 when we put an approximate time, so it could have been 11.30, it could
18 have been 12.35. And somebody had added that it was -- that it was on
19 that day, on the 2nd of February, somebody had added 12.35. It was
20 impossible to admit 50, 60 people in one minute, but then of course,
21 considering that the passage to the hospital was also blocked because of
22 all the injured and all the cars, they may have come within 20 minutes of
23 each other, all of those who were going to the emergency centre.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would ask if the doctor can
25 be shown document ERN 6568 -- 6586. Not that document, but another
1 document, the last four digits being 6586 of the ERN number.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Do you have the exhibit number, Ms. Pilipovic,
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that my colleagues had
5 a number.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Is it from the same batch we received -- yes, there
7 we are.
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we received that yesterday
9 and I believe that --
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document number P3737A.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Doctor, you explained to us yesterday that this is a logbook
13 where upon admission in hospital, certain data is entered and that this
14 data is entered by the nurses?
15 A. What I said was that names and surnames and possibly people who
16 escorted them and the date of birth, if the person is employed and so on,
17 this is done by the nurses. But the diagnosis is done by the doctors.
18 Q. Yes. Yes. Doctor, could you please look at this document and
19 show us from which serial number victims were brought in from Markale?
20 A. If this is the document we are talking, P3737A, is that the
21 document we are talking about?
22 Q. That is the document that you see before you, and begins with the
23 page 6586.
24 A. Yes. Fine. That is the very last patient on the page. His name
25 is Muagic [phoen], date of birth 1957, address Slavje Cavena Tutra [phoen]
1 Street number 6, which is where he lived. The name cannot be read.
2 Q. Can you tell us before the name, could you tell us the date?
3 A. It is very difficult to see, but it is 7/05.
4 Q. So that is the first one?
5 A. Yes. These two patients arrived on the same day. That is, four
6 patients came, but they were injured on other locations. I am talking
7 from midnight after 5th of February.
8 Q. When you are talking about other locations, Doctor, could you
9 please tell us whether in this logbook, we have a column where we can see
10 from which location a patient was brought in?
11 A. This is -- this is admissions of patients into the centre.
12 Sometimes we had the address of the patient, where he comes from, and
13 sometimes the location where he had come from.
14 Q. As far as I understand, you told us that the data is inputted by
15 the nurse and diagnosis by the doctor?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you tell us who takes the anamnesis from the patient?
18 A. That is done by the doctor, if the patient is conscious, of
20 Q. Now, if the patient is conscious, on the basis of what the
21 patient says, does then the doctor establish the diagnosis, whether that
22 is the right diagnosis?
23 A. No, no. The diagnosis is what happens after the doctor has
24 checked him. The previous, the anamnesis could be speaking technically
25 medically, that could be half of the diagnosis, but it is only after a
1 thorough examination that it can -- something else can be said.
2 Q. Now, that when you tell us that this is the logbook of the
3 hospital, you are confirming that the original of this document exists in
4 the hospital?
5 A. Yes, absolutely.
6 Q. Can you tell us how many persons were brought in on the 5th of
7 February 1994 who were dead on arrival?
8 A. I cannot tell you on the top of my head, but I am sure we do have
9 this data.
10 Q. The Defence examined this document carefully and on page 6594 we
11 saw that there were six people on the 5th of February.
12 A. You mean from number 790?
13 Q. Yes. By carefully examining this logbook for numbers from 705 to
14 797 in relation to the 5th of February, we have it marked that there are
15 six people?
16 A. On this page, there are more than six, but I don't know which six
17 you mean. You mean six dead?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. The only thing that you can make a distinction here, if you allow
20 me and that is, according to our documentation, three persons, the first
21 three diagnosis, we have the names, but I am not going to give them to
22 you, that people died, people were killed outside. Motis Alatis [pheon],
23 the doctor confirmed diagnosis, the definite diagnosis that death occurred
24 on the way to the hospital, which is that the patient was dead on arrival.
25 This is the case with three patients and the following two patients, X, Y,
1 that is a man and he was looked at, he was taken to thoracic surgery, and
2 this is when he died. The following two patients were taken to the
3 operation theatre and both of them died during surgery, either during
4 preparatory proceedings or when they started -- tried to stop them
5 bleeding. But unfortunately they both died during surgery.
6 Q. So, Doctor, we agree that in this logbook that is from your
7 institution, we can see that six people died who were brought in on the
8 5th of February 1994 and for whom you told us that these persons had been
9 brought from Markale, as it was written in your logbook?
10 A. Ms. Pilipovic, you are only speaking about one page. If you wish
11 to do this, we can go through all the page. I am prepared to do that.
12 Q. I agree. Perhaps I wasn't careful enough. So from number 705.
13 A. 888. 888, 889, would be the following number as well, except that
14 with the first patient, death occurred at the intensive care unit and the
15 second one was -- died outside. There are two -- other two logbooks, the
16 logbook of the operations theatre, which correlates fully with the logbook
17 that we see here. And then there is a second logbook, logbook of the
18 morgue, or the mortuary, where the dead were taken directly.
19 Q. Yes, Doctor, but I only asked you about the logbook from your
20 institution, the one we see before you, where I saw -- you said that
21 there was another person?
22 A. Another two people.
23 Q. Another two people, that would be eight persons, about whom you
24 stated that these people had died in your institution, and they were
25 brought on the 2nd of February.
1 A. We are talking about people who died on the same date, 5th of
2 February. And we are talking about the people who were brought to the
3 emergency centre, and death occurred, and was recorded in the logbook.
4 There are different logbooks but the two are most significant, rather
5 three are most significant, I mentioned one which is the logbook of the
6 operations, the surgical procedures, and then the second one of the
7 intensive care unit.
8 Q. Doctor --
9 A. And the third one, the most important one is the logbook of the
10 morgue, of the mortuary.
11 Q. So are you telling us, Doctor, that in this document that we see
12 before us there is actually a proper content, a list of people who were
13 brought on the 5th of February to your hospital?
14 A. I mentioned yesterday, if you were listening, that there were
15 three institutions in the city of Sarajevo, which is the Dobrinja
16 hospital, probably because of its location could not admit many injured
17 from the 5th of February. And the second institution is the general
18 hospital which was able to admit a large number of injured. And
19 the third one is ours, and they admitted most of the patients.
20 Q. I understand that, Doctor, but to start with you told us that
21 this text which was typed with a typewriter, for the 5th of February, it
22 was established that there were 127 people and that it was --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic speed is going astronomical at this
24 moment. Could you please slow down. And you also, Dr. Gavrankapetanovic,
25 slow down, otherwise, the interpreters will not be able to follow you.
1 Yes, please proceed.
2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. So, Mr. Gavrankapetanovic, the first document I submitted to you,
4 6530, that we were looking at, and with reference to which we agreed that
5 it is report from your hospital, that you yourself signed on the date of
6 the 5th of February 1994, it is a typed written text and it ends with a
7 number 127. And it refers to persons injured or killed at the Markale
8 square according to your evidence.
9 You also told us that it was compiled on the basis of the
10 hospital register. Is it correct?
11 A. It was compiled on the basis of the company registers, in the
13 Q. So we do agree that this document submitted to the Prosecution
14 does not represent actual state of affairs on that day, the 5th of
15 February 1994?
16 A. We have to include something which is rather significant, if you
17 allow me to complement this idea. We have to refer to the register of
18 the morgue, which is separate, because that is the place where the dead
19 were taken directly. I mean all those people that displayed certain signs
20 of death were taken there directly. There was no need for taking them to
21 the emergency. So they were taken directly to the morgue, which is also
22 part of the hospital.
23 Q. Doctor, will you agree with me that the first document we were
24 looking at, the typed written one, 6530 is the document which was drawn
25 up much later than the day we were referring to originally, the 5th of
1 February, that it might have been drawn up subsequently?
2 A. It was signed later, but I can't tell you that it was compiled
4 Q. So you can't tell us exactly on what day it was drawn up?
5 A. It was certainly drawn up on that day. I did mention that I was
6 not a part of the management of the hospital at the time, but I know for
7 certain that the lists were displayed on a number of locations throughout
8 the hospital so that the people could find out, I mean, the family and
9 friends, could find out who had been injured or who, unfortunately, had
10 been killed.
11 Q. But, Doctor, you can agree with me that it is a document coming
12 from your hospital?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So the staff of your hospital compiled this list of names at your
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. If I tell you that that list of names is not in line with your
18 actual hospital register which refers to the admissions of all patients
19 entering the hospital, could you then explain the differences between the
20 two documents?
21 A. Yes. We have thirty-six organisational units as we call them,
22 fifteen surgical departments. Every surgical department, and that's what
23 we are talking about, has a separate register.
24 Q. Doctor, does it mean that the name of one and the same patient
25 can be found more than once in all the various registers, if the patient
1 is moved from one department, one ward to the other?
2 A. Yes. But just let me add, all those who are only lightly
3 injured, those bearing isolated injuries, there was no need for them to
4 be sent to the emergencies. We then redistributed patients, so to say,
5 and sent them to other wards. And basically, what we were looking at
6 here were only one or two units, that is to say the operating theatre and
7 C-3. They were redistributed to other clinical wards for various
8 injuries -- injuries to the senses or injuries to their extremities, et
9 cetera. But, of course, all those who were severely injured, were listed
10 in this protocol.
11 Q. Doctor, can you tell us whether for all these people whose names
12 can be found in this list, there is a case history as well?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you tell us with reference to the patients admitted to your
15 hospital whether you had them X-rayed?
16 A. Due to the speed of the operations and the flow of people,
17 unfortunately, at that particular time we were unable to have all the
18 patients X-rayed.
19 Q. Can you tell us on the basis of what you entered the data about
20 the causes of the injuries?
21 A. The admissions were managed by the most senior surgeon on call,
22 the most experienced person on the staff. And believe me, if there is
23 somebody who comes along and their leg has been chopped off, you can tell
24 what happened even without an X-ray, and the same refers to punctured
25 lungs or open head injuries, their insides spilling out, I mean, you can
1 tell it with the naked eye, you don't have to have them X-rayed.
2 Q. I can agree with that statement. But can you explain to us how
3 you can tell without an X-ray that it was a sniper injury or rather can
4 you tell us on the basis of what you could tell that it was a sniper
6 A. I don't really know what case you are referring to in particular,
7 but --
8 Q. I am going to submit to you a paper --
9 A. We have the so-called high nozzle velocity injury which means
10 injuries caused by high speed bullets and the entry and exit points can
11 tell you that we are talking about a high energy bullet. High impact
12 bullet. As to whether it is an artillery piece causing that or other
13 weapons with a low initial speed such as various guns or whether these
14 wounds caused by shrapnel from shells, they appear, they have a specific
15 type of appearance. I can't explain it right now.
16 Q. All I was asking you about, was the people who had sniper wounds,
17 since in the document that the Prosecution has, there is this reference
18 to snipers. That was all I was asking you about.
19 Do you draw these conclusions on the basis of the statements made
20 by the patients themselves, on the basis of the data they provide when
21 you decide on the diagnosis, et cetera?
22 A. It has to do with the way in which the wound has penetrated the
23 soft tissue. There you hardly need -- I mean, I am talking about high
24 impact wounds. You hardly need an X-ray there because you will open the
25 wound -- I mean, the surgeon will open the wound and will be able to tell,
1 as opposed to wounds of bone structure, where X-rays are necessary, of
2 course, if you have the opportunity to do so.
3 Q. Can a surgeon, when examining a patient, tell whether the wound
4 was caused by sniper or by a gun bullet?
5 A. He can tell whether it was a high or low impact bullet.
6 Q. Doctor, can you tell us whether at your hospital when it comes to
7 the patients who died in the course of their treatment, whether you
8 carried out any post-mortems?
9 A. In all cases where there was suspicious death we asked for
10 forensic examination to be carried out. Very rarely we had highly
11 specialised pathological post-mortems. But considering the extremely
12 high number of casualties, especially during a certain period, it was not
13 possible to carry out those post-mortems so the dead in order to prevent
14 any outbreaks of infection, were buried, as soon as possible.
15 Q. What I am referring to in particular is the incident that we have
16 discussed at greatest length, on the 5th of February 1994. And then the
17 incident which happened on the 1st of June and the 12th of July. In
18 those cases, did you carry out any post-mortems?
19 A. This is something which is within the area of the competence of
20 the faculty of medicine and it is outside the scope of what the hospital
21 does. And two people who were employed at the centre simply did not have
22 time, physically to carry out all the post-mortems, and therefore, except
23 in very rare cases, we did not carry out the post-mortems.
24 Q. Doctor, are you telling us that during that particular period of
25 time, in 1992, 1993, 1994, you did not carry out post-mortems or in other
1 words that your hospital does not have any documents referring to these
3 A. I am going to repeat my answer. Legal medicine is a discipline
4 which is within the area of the competence of the faculty of medicine,
5 and therefore the hospital does not make any decisions as to what
6 patients are going to be submitted for post-mortems. We can only make
7 suggestions. In all cases where there was even a slight suspicion as to
8 the cause of death we always requested a post-mortem. As to whether
9 those post-mortems were carried out by the competent professionals, I
10 can't tell you.
11 Q. So, you are telling us that you, yourself have no knowledge
12 about whether these post-mortems had been carried out or not --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is it really necessary to hear the answers to
14 similar questions three, four, five times? I think the witness has been
15 quite clear on this issue. So if there is any additional information you
16 would like to hear ask the witness, but do not repeat your questions or
17 seek confirmation of the answers already given once or twice.
18 Please proceed.
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. But I
20 don't think I have received a satisfactory answer as to the fact that
21 Mr. Gavrankapetanovic has no knowledge of these post-mortems. It did not
22 seem like a clear answer and that is why I insisted?
23 Q. Doctor, can you explain to us, when you talk about a case history
24 of disease, does it always have to be recorded on a relevant form?
25 A. Yes, if you have such a form.
1 Q. Is that form an integral part or rather, if we talk about a case
2 history, does it normally include the letter of discharge at the end?
3 A. Yes. Page 1 is basically the part or rather the copy of the
4 first page is the part that is given to the patient or the document that
5 we give to our patients when they are released from hospital.
6 Q. Doctor, so when a patient is discharged, they get a letter of
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Is that letter of discharge an
10 integral part of the case history, the very same form, is it a different
11 form? I don't understand.
12 A. The case history, or the anamnesis refers to at least four pages
13 and the letter of discharge can only include two pages, or rather, a sheet
14 of paper. In the case history, two pages are connected. You can sort of
15 leaf through them as if it were a book. If a patient had spent a long
16 time at the hospital, you can have as many as eight or even more pages.
17 And the letter of discharge is always a single page, possibly two, and if
18 there is a long text, you write on the second page, but generally
19 speaking, it is just one page.
20 Q. From what I have gathered, you confirm that in 1992, 1993, 1994,
21 you worked at the clinical centre?
22 A. Yes, throughout that period.
23 Q. Can you tell us whether your hospital admitted soldiers as well?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you explain to us, upon admission of soldiers what did you
1 enter into your files, on the basis of what did you say that those were
3 A. It was the technical and administrative staff who were in charge
4 of that. You refer to the name and surname of the patient, the year of
5 their birth, the place from where they were brought to the hospital, and
6 possibly their address, and if they were soldiers or a member of the
7 police force, their unit.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, may I ask you, you used now the same
9 time as has been used in chief. May I take it that you will finish in a
10 couple of minutes? Yes.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
12 Q. Doctor, have I understood you correctly in that these persons,
13 soldiers and police officers, when it comes to the files kept at your
14 hospital had been entered into these files in a separate way?
15 A. No. It was only entered in to the general register. But we
16 indicated that there were soldiers, in other words, everybody admitted to
17 the hospital, either due to illness or injury, their names were entered
18 into the register, no matter they were soldiers, police officers,
19 civilians, children, women, and so on.
20 Q. Doctor, can you answer just one more question: Considering that
21 we have heard quite a few witness accounts about many people being
22 members of the BH army and not wearing uniforms, when it came to these
23 people when they were brought to your hospital, if they were injured or
24 wounded in any way, on the basis of what did you determine their status?
25 A. As far as I know, soldiers were mostly in uniforms. If there
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 were some discrepancies -- and that only referred to the very beginning
2 of the war. But even if they did not wear a full uniform, normally we
3 could tell that they were members of the army because they had some
5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Pilipovic.
7 Mr. Sachdeva, is there any need to --
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- re-examine the witness?
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Your Honour. Can the witness be shown
12 Exhibit P3737C.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which number, sorry?
14 Re-examined by Mr. Sachdeva:
15 Q. Doctor, can you please go to -- firstly to the page with the
16 reference number 02156620. On the right hand, right corner at the bottom
17 is number 92.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, if you can go to the next page. I have to do it this way,
20 because the next page is not referred to by numbers. Perhaps you can put
21 the document on the ELMO.
22 A. It is too big. I don't know if it will fit the ELMO.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Can it be moved to the right a little bit, please.
24 Yes, keep going the other way.
25 Q. On the column on the left, can you see the figure 316?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And the next row after that, can you explain what is filled in in
3 those rows?
4 A. I am going to have to repeat what I have already said, that is to
5 say, that this form comes from a construction company because you can see
6 that it refers to the type of machinery used, et cetera.
7 Q. It was my fault. I wasn't precise enough. I am talking about
8 the columns underneath the heading -- the columns with the typed headings,
9 where the name is there, you can see Mida Gonovic [phoen]?
10 A. Yes, I can. Yes, I do see it. The register had been rewritten,
11 as it were, because we -- there was a shortage of paper, a shortage of
12 registers. And so this is the register from the morgue.
13 Q. Can you see the word "Markale"?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. And can you explain what that means?
16 A. These are the names of the dead brought from Markale and the
17 serial number, the first one is 316 and the last one is 330 on the 5th of
18 February, their identification in terms of identifying who they were, the
19 names, the address, and name of their parents was not entered, but we have
20 sex, male or female.
21 Q. So this page shows that everyone, all these people were brought
22 in directly from Markale to the morgue on this page?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you move two pages forward, now. You should have 331 on the
25 left-hand side.
1 A. Yes, I can see that.
2 Q. Is it the same for this page? This page shows people were
3 brought in from Markale?
4 A. Yes. Yes, starting with 331, through to 345, the date is the 5th
5 of February 1994, and the place of injury, rather the place of death, in
6 this case, I apologise, Markale. Sex, male or female, and we don't have
7 the name of the father and the address Sarajevo.
8 Q. Thank you. And now a further two pages forward, starting from
9 the number 346 on the left-hand side. It can be moved slightly -- that
10 is correct.
11 A. There is a difference here. All these people were dead between
12 346 and 360, the ones that were taken directly to the morgue from Markale
13 are the numbers from 346 through to 353, the late Mrs. Smilja Delic
14 [phoen] from Markale. And 354 through to 360 where patients who actually
15 died at the neurosurgical ward.
16 Q. Thank you. Last question: Do you know people were taken to
17 other hospitals on the 5th of February 1994 from Markale in Sarajevo?
18 A. Certainly, if we refer to any other hospitals, some people were
19 taken to the general hospital of Sarajevo, and I did already reply to
20 Mrs. Pilipovic that we have 15 surgical wards, departments, within the
21 clinical centre which could deal with some isolated injuries without the
22 need for people to be taken to the emergencies first.
23 Q. Were there any cases for medical insurance, if the patient was a
24 soldier or a dependent of a soldier?
25 A. No, there was no insurance for anyone. It was a free for all. We
1 did not get paid anyway. There was no taxation, there was nothing
2 whatsoever, so everybody was treated in the same way.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] For the sake of the
5 transport, there is an inversion of the question and answer.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: That concludes the re-examination, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Sachdeva.
8 Before adjourning may I just ask you, what will be the order
9 after the break and if there -- if it would be needed, prepare for
10 protective measures I would rather finish now --
11 MR. IERACE: No, Mr. President. I think it is -- indeed I think
12 it is likely at this stage that we won't need those measures from first
13 thing tomorrow. When one factors in the time required for Ewa Tabeau and
14 Mrs. Arifagic.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will now have a break.
16 Mr. Gavrankapetanovic, there might be one or more questions from the
17 Bench, so we will adjourn until 5 minutes past 11.00 and your presence is
18 still required at that moment.
19 We will adjourn until 5 minutes past 11.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 11.10 a.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi has one or more questions to you,
23 Mr. Gavrankapetanovic.
24 Questioned by the Court:
25 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 [Interpretation] Sir, I would like to show you some documents.
2 Madam Registrar, could you help me, please.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document P3737A.
4 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Sir could you please have a
5 look at number 777.
6 If I understand correctly, the hour of admission is 1545, and
7 then 778 is 1235 hours. And if you have a look at further down to 795,
8 the hour of admission is 1620 hours. And then the name which appears
9 before and after, the hour of admission is 1235.
10 Could you perhaps explain to us this phenomena, so to speak?
11 A. Yes, Your Honour. We have seen that from one area in the city,
12 more than 100 injured persons were admitted but their treatment lasted
13 for several hours. For some of them you were able to see, even here at
14 the end, the end of this part that you mentioned, they don't even
15 sometimes have name and surname, when we are talking about Markale. But
16 they were admitted as X, Y, either as a male or female person. For the
17 two cases that you mentioned, they did not come from the Markale area.
18 Mr. Hodzic was injured in Hrsanica so he did not come from Markale and his
19 hour of admission was inputted and the second person, Mr. Keso also from
20 another location, not from Markale, we took care of both persons, but we
21 set them apart from the people injured in Markale, and that is where we
22 put that they were admitted at 1235 hours. That means that for these two
23 people, this is to say that they were not in the same group injured with
24 the group in Markale. Just like those people who were injured up to 1000
25 hours, and those who were injured late at night, they came from other
2 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand what you are
3 saying but what surprises me a little is that afterwards, the hour of
4 admission is 1235. So for 777 the hour of admission was 1445 and then
5 you took the injured from the Markale market? It is this phenomenon which
6 made me look at it more closely, and that is why I ask for your
8 A. Yes. All the people were admitted from Markale and they were all
9 located in one place, and that is for this reason, is that we also had
10 some people who were injured the same period around about the Markale
11 incident. They were also admitted and we also had to take care of them.
12 That was our duty. Now, the fact is that there were probably not all
13 people were entered, those who arrived. They were probably not put into
14 the registration book immediately. But, first of all, they were treated,
15 surgically treated, the bleeding was stopped, their wounds were attended
16 to, and then possibly they were entered into the registration book, into
17 the logbook, because it was probably impossible to do it properly, so that
18 it would be properly visible for all the people that arrived at the same
20 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Gavrankapetanovic, this concludes your testimony
23 in this court -- but Ms. Pilipovic is standing so let me just first hear
24 what she would like to tell us.
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The question
1 that I would like to ask comes from a question that was asked by Judge El
2 Mahdi. And Dr. Gavrankapetanovic clarified for Mr. Fikret Hodzic, what
3 happened, that the person who was injured in Hrasnica, if I understood
4 the doctor correctly, and the time for that was 1545 hours.
5 And my question in relation to document 6530, this was the first
6 document which was typed document, according to the testimony of the
7 doctor, the persons who were injured in Markale and the number 83 in
8 this document this is an English translation, page is 2527, 2527, under
9 number 83. I am trying to be able to read in this document which is not
10 very legible. I am trying to find it in B/C/S so that I can read it.
11 But I cannot find it.
12 However, in the translation of this document, in the translation
13 of this document, and Yes, I have found it in the B/C/S version 6544 or
14 page 6020.
15 Further cross-examination by Ms. Pilipovic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Can you see, Doctor, and the number 83, it's not
17 that document you need the document -- the very first document we looked
18 at, the typed document ERN 6530. Last four digits.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Ms. Pilipovic, is this going to get a "D" number?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, the question is, whether this -- this
21 was in the bundle, and you, for the first time, gave it to the witness.
22 Are you going to tender that and that would then be number D --
23 THE REGISTRAR: D171.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And may I take it that the translation will then be
1 D171.1 yes.
2 Please proceed.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Doctor, could you please look at page 6544. Serial number 83.
5 6544. Number 83, can you see it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Doctor, you told us that this document was compiled including all
8 the people who were injured in Markale, in accordance with the
9 registration in your service, and following Judge El Mahdi's question,
10 for the person under 777, Mr. Fikret Hodzic who was injured and received
11 at 1545, you said he was injured in Hrasnica. How can you explain that
12 this person, Fikret Hodzic appears on this list to be this person who was
13 injured at Markale?
14 A. Yes, the service that had the task of retyping all the names
15 of people injured on that day -- did this and they went, according to the
16 logbook, to the registration hospital book, in the main logbook, which
17 was handwritten. So it happened that this person also appeared on this
18 list, but the main registration book, the main logbook of the emergency
19 centre which was handwritten it is obvious that this is the registration
20 book which is the most authentic.
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that was my question.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much.
23 Then, Dr. Gavrankapetanovic, I repeat that this concludes your
24 testimony in this court. I thank you very much for having come to The
25 Hague and that you have given answers to all the questions of both
1 parties and of the Bench. And I wish you a good trip home again.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you,
3 Mr. President. I thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort
5 Mr. Gavrankapetanovic out of the courtroom.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please assist us in going
8 through the documents.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3737A, extract from the records of the
10 Sarajevo clinical reception in Triasbloc [phoen] in B/C/S; P3737A.1,
11 English translation; P3737B, extract from the record of the operating room
12 of surgical clinics in B/C/S; P3737B.1, English translation; P3737C,
13 medical documentation excerpt from logbook in B/C/S; P3737C.1, English
14 translation; P3737D, medical documentation; P3737D.1 English
15 translation -- yes.
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence objects
17 to the admission of these documents into evidence. We believe that these
18 are not authentic documents. We don't think that the copies are authentic
19 copies of originals. I believe that we think that these documents have
20 been manipulated and that they were compiled after certain events.
21 JUDGE ORIE: What documents are you now talking about? The
22 last --
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am talking about
24 3737A, which is the very first document. I am talking about --
25 JUDGE ORIE: B and C?
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] 3737B and 3737C.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say that the Defence is of the opinion
3 that these are manipulated documents. Is there any further explanation
4 to that?
5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, from the very first
6 moment, the Defence contested the authenticity of the medical
7 documentation because it was barely legible and because it was impossible
8 to tender originals before the Chamber and the Defence in order to prove
9 the authenticity of the documents, which is why we stand by objections
10 regarding the medical documentation, which was disclosed by the
11 Prosecution to the Defence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I now hear several different arguments. First --
13 your first explanation was that these were manipulated. Then I heard that
14 they were badly legible. And so is it the manipulation at this moment?
15 I mean, and where do we find here the bad legibility, because that has
16 been an issue very often. And, of course, we see that there are some
17 handwritten parts.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I am just trying to understand your objection.
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, specifically, when
21 we are looking at document 3737C, from this document it is so illegible
22 that we can't even make out which institution it is, if it does relate to
23 a medical institution at all. Specifically, the stamp, the seal is barely
24 visible. We cannot see which institution is in question. Particularly
25 because the -- what the witness said and we are also believe -- we have
1 suspicions that this document had been compiled after the fact. I cannot
2 see a seal.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Am I correct I heard no questions about seals or
4 the witness has testified that this comes from his hospital, from, I
5 think, C is from the morgue of the hospital. I have not heard any
6 question that would put in dispute that fact. So I am just wondering, I
7 am trying to understand your objection, and I am also trying to put that
8 objection in its procedural context. But let's hear what it Prosecution
9 has to say.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I also believe that the witness has
11 testified in court to the authenticity of these documents, and for each
12 of the documents that have been shown to him, he has confirmed that they
13 emanate from his institution, an institution which he is the director
14 general of. The issue of manipulation has not been put directly to the
15 witness, and so I would submit that these documents should be admitted
16 into evidence. Thank you, Mr. President.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. The documents are admitted
19 into evidence. Then we were, Madam Registrar, at P3737D, I think.
20 Because the objection was about 3737 A, B, and C. Or would the objection
21 also relate to "D"? No. So we then have P3737D.1 --
22 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour, I
23 am just trying to identify the 3737D document.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It is the Franic medical record. The four page --
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes. That was also
1 an objection to the Defence and the witness explained what the medical
2 history was and what was a letter of discharge because we had two
3 different documents from Mr. Franic but the document, which is in form of
4 a letter of discharge, was illegible at the time when we had it. That was
5 5477. And later on, the Defence received a document which was more
6 legible, but only its case history and not a letter of discharge.
7 So we object to the letter of discharge as being illegible.
8 JUDGE ORIE: What part can't you read Ms. Pilipovic?
9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is the section
10 in the middle. I am talking about document 2477. This is the letter of
11 discharge of Mr. Franic.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I am talking about P3737D. And that is the -- I
13 think that is what has been tendered now by the Prosecution. So we have
14 to decide on the admission of that document.
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that is the document 3737D,
16 then that is the case history as much as I can see from the document.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, the Defence has now
19 objection as regards the legibility, since it is a legible document.
20 JUDGE ORIE: So I then may conclude that there are no objections
21 against P3737D and there is no other document in respect of Mr. Franic
22 that is tendered at this moment? Am I right in understanding?
23 MR. SACHDEVA: If I recall there was one document that was
24 tendered during the testimony in respect to that incident.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then I have to -- it is rather about a patient than
1 about an incident, I think.
2 Madam Registrar would there be --
3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: At earlier stages, there has been a dispute about
5 the legibility of the discharge letter of Mr. Franic. It was my
6 understanding that rather than putting into evidence the information
7 contained in the discharge letter, you now relied upon the medical record
8 of the hospital. But if that is wrong, then --
9 MR. SACHDEVA: That is correct, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So you are tendering now P3737D?
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Correct.
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's then admitted in evidence. Then we have two
14 Defence documents.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D171, medical documentation; Exhibit
16 D171.1, English translation.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. I hear no objections so
18 therefore they are admitted into evidence as well.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: No objections.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then Mr. Stamp, perhaps --
21 MR. STAMP: Yes, the next witness will be Ewa Tabeau --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ewa Tabeau --
23 MR. STAMP: And she is here.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and the Defence has requested to cross-examine
25 the witness on the additional part of her report.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: May I be excused, Mr. President?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you are. Do you have copies to be tendered
3 or -- I know that the additional part of the report has been filed with
4 the Registry.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.
6 MR. STAMP: I must confess that the document having been prepared
7 at the request of the court --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. STAMP: -- and having been filed not to us or not by us but
10 through the Registry --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is right.
12 MR. STAMP: -- I would have thought that it went automatically as
13 an addendum without us having to make a formal application.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- first of all, I do agree that it was the
15 request of the court and part of the confirmation contained in it was in
16 request of the Defence, because the Defence added a few aspects. So then
17 you -- Mr. Usher, could you then please bring in Ewa Tabeau.
18 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, before --
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you to leave the courtroom for one more
21 second, yes. Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I was going to say I have
23 only communicated in sign language with the Prosecution recently because
24 we simply received a couple of pieces of paper for a witness who is going
25 to come soon, but then these photocopies are really not legible. If you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 could provide us with more legible documentation during the course of the
3 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that during the last break you showed it to
4 the Prosecution and they refused --
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have only just received
6 them and I have tried to communicate my complaint in sign language.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is this a document that will be used during the next
9 MR. STAMP: It is, Mr. President. And we have the original copy
10 here for --
11 JUDGE ORIE: That is just as dark as the --
12 MR. STAMP: There are parts of it which are not completely
13 legible. My understanding is that the relevant part, the part which is
14 relevant to the issue in this case is legible.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Let's then see. So I do understand that
16 the Prosecution has no better legible copies available for the Defence.
17 Okay, that -- having established that, could we then please ask Mr. Usher
18 to escort Ms. Tabeau into the courtroom.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Recalled]
21 MR. STAMP: I was wondering if the Court was indicating that
22 perhaps I could assist the Court with copies?
23 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, I left my copy on my desk. I
24 studied it yesterday evening, but I left it on my desk, but my colleagues
25 might have been more -- they have copies.
1 Please be seated, Ms. Tabeau. We are being very impolite not
2 saying good morning to you and not asking you to be seated.
3 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise for that. But we are still trying to
5 get distributed your last part of the report that has been distributed
6 before, but is not in everyone's hand at this moment.
7 Mr. Usher, would you please.
8 Ms. Tabeau, may I first thank you for your quick reply to the
9 request of the Chamber to provide additional information and I take it
10 that I can also speak on behalf of the Defence that asked for specific
11 information as well.
12 The Defence has asked to put additional questions to you in
13 relation to this additional document. May I take it, Mr. Stamp, that
14 since you have not expressed such a wish, that you have no questions at
15 this moment.
16 MR. STAMP: No questions.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Good
19 day, Mrs. Tabeau.
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I remind you that you are still bound by the
21 solemn declaration hat you gave at the very beginning of your testimony.
22 Please proceed.
23 Further cross-examination by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you for being here. Thank you for having
25 come so swiftly and for having done all this fast, perhaps a bit too fast.
1 Can you confirm the report that you have drawn up? It is not dated, by
2 the way.
3 A. It is not dated? I think it is dated here. The 24th of July.
4 This is what I have.
5 Q. Very well. It is dated, but it is not signed. Can you confirm
7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps for the record, if the copy in the hands of
8 the Registrar will be given to the witness so that she can identify this
9 document as the document.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is the document.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Thank you. Mrs. Tabeau, it is a three-page document, isn't it?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps, Ms. Tabeau, if you keep the document
14 that you just identified, that is the document we will now use in court.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
16 Mr. President, perhaps I could ask the witness to sign this
17 document which can be then tendered.
18 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, you have looked at the losses, that is to say, those
19 killed and those wounded and you found that the overall figure was lower
20 than your initial figure. Is that correct?
21 A. You are speaking now about table 3, I believe?
22 Q. I am making a general statement, Madam, and with reference to
23 table 3, but the result is included in your table 3.
24 Let me just specify that we don't have enough time so let me just
25 ask you, yes or no, did you find that the number of victims was lower or
2 A. Well, I cannot answer this type of question. We were discussing
3 6.055 records last time from table 2, and you suggested that
4 approximately 2000 of records from this total, I am speaking about killed
6 Q. Let me stop you here. Is it not correct, Madam, representative
7 of the Prosecution, that in the column included in table 3, there is a
8 difference of the order of 10.456.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. STAMP: I want to know if it is appropriate to address the
11 witness as Madam, representative of the Prosecution. That is an argument
12 which is a matter that we can ventilate elsewhere. If he could refer to
13 her as Dr. Tabeau or Madam Witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I see before that on the names that you give to your
15 submissions, you are even commenting on the titles of your submissions.
16 In this Tribunal, there are witnesses, there are expert witnesses, and it
17 is fully inappropriate once some person is examined as a witness or an as
18 expert witness to refer to such a witness or expert witness as a
19 representative of the Prosecution. You could have known this, you should
20 have known this.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, yes, I know.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, very much,
25 Mr. President. Well, I would like you to assist me because the witness
1 refuses to answer the question.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You interrupted her when she was answering a
3 question. Would you please put a clear question to the witness. It is
4 not the feeling of this Chamber that this expert witness refuses to
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Is it correct, Madam - and I would be very grateful if you could
8 answer by a yes or no - that having revised your calculations, you found
9 that the overall number of victims was lower; yes or no?
10 A. No. It is -- I revised the figure you were discussing last time,
11 you were interested in the numbers of excluded records that were still
12 relevant to the area within confrontation lines and were related to the
13 whole period covered by this study. So I have this number and this
14 number is mentioned in table 3, column 3 --
15 Q. May I interrupt you, Madam. You said "no" so did you find that
16 the overall number was higher?
17 A. The overall number reported in my study, the number of killed
18 persons and wounded persons, related to the indictment period and
19 indictment area remained the same. This has not changed.
20 Q. Well, Madam --
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we are wasting
22 time because I believe that the witness does not wish to give a precise
24 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, let me by quite
25 clear. You put a question to the witness and you said "answer by yes or
1 no." The first word of her answer was "no" and then she tried to explain
2 why and then you interrupted her halfway. So there is no way of saying
3 that if you are interested to hear an explanation, ask the witness.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Is it correct, Madam, yes or no, that there is a difference of
6 the order of 370 killed and one thousand and more wounded --
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the last figure,
8 I'm sorry.
9 THE WITNESS: This number that you mentioned is indeed used to
10 correct figures --
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
12 Q. That is not my question, Madam. My question is simply --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I want you to treat this expert
14 witness in a polite way.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Madam witness, you have understand my question very well. The
17 question refers to specific figures. Yes or no, is there a difference of
18 the order of 317 with respect to the killed and 1.667 for the wounded;
19 yes or no?
20 MR. STAMP: I object. Counsel cannot insist on a yes or no
21 answer without a simple well defined question, clear and simple. The
22 question is too vague for a yes or no answer. Any answer from an expert
23 would require qualification.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Tabeau if a yes or no answer could not be
25 given, the Chamber would like to hear what your answer to the question
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I haven't had
4 the opportunity to reply to the objection. I would like this to be taken
5 note of.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Let me rephrase my question and I will take all the time I need,
9 otherwise, I will ask for it to be noted that we will be renouncing our
10 rights considering the quality of the replies.
11 Well, mathematically speaking, is there a difference that I am
12 referring to, yes or no?
13 A. Yes, mathematically speaking.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. President, my
15 question was clear and it took me five minutes to obtain an answer.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I am not going to grant any extra
17 time on the basis of what happened the last five minutes.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Is it correct, Madam, that in your table 3, you have included the
20 new changes in the third column, 3, new column; yes or no?
21 A. Yes, this is a new column.
22 Q. So you included the new figures then; yes or no?
23 A. Yes, these are new figures.
24 Q. Thank you very much.
25 These new figures are based on the fact that you have subtracted
1 from the overall period, taking into consideration the elements which
2 should not have been included due to either the places or the locations.
3 Is that correct?
4 A. The substraction is indeed related to places and dates that were
5 unknown, reported unknown.
6 Q. If you could just please answer yes or no, we would gain some
8 JUDGE ORIE: I allowed witness to give explanations, if she
9 thinks that a yes or no could not be given.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very
13 Q. So you have taken into consideration these elements; yes or no?
14 A. Unknown dates, unknown places, yes.
15 Q. Thank you very much.
16 You have subtracted figures with reference to column 3 and 4; is
17 that correct, yes or no?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Thank you very much.
20 And that column gives you a result at the end of it, that's the
21 column referring to the difference, is that correct, yes or no?
22 A. The difference is the difference --
23 Q. Thank you very much. And you have indicated in your text below
24 your report that the difference referred to the period of time,
25 basically, between January and September 1992, basically, the 9th of
1 September 1992; is that correct?
2 A. And also including the period in August 1994 and September 1994
3 that are outside the indictment period.
4 Q. On the other hand, in order to carry out this entire operation,
5 you included into column 4, subtitle replicated, exactly the same figures
6 as the one included in your previous report, is that correct, yes or no?
7 A. These columns are replicated, yes, in the same table.
8 Q. That was not really my question. That was not my question. I am
9 referring to column 4. You have included exactly the same figures as the
10 ones included in your previous analysis; yes or no?
11 A. Yes, column 4.
12 Q. That would mean, Madam that you considered that there was no
13 case that could have been excluded due to elements referring to time or
14 place in this last column, so that is why you reported as it was before;
15 yes or no?
16 A. Column 4 includes only records that are known, specific, in terms
17 of dates and places. The records unknown, unknown places were excluded
18 from column 4 from the very beginning.
19 Q. Madam, is it correct, that in the last analysis, you did not
20 exclude from your report due to unknown data, things referring to the
21 period of time before September 1992; is that so, yes or no?
22 A. Column 2 indeed included unknown dates and places.
23 Q. Madam, no. Column 2 included unknown places, but not column 4?
24 A. Not column 4.
25 Q. So how come column 4 does not include item -- in column 4 they are
2 A. In column 4 unknown places and dates are excluded and not
3 included. Unknown dates and unknown places are excluded from column 4.
4 Q. Madam, is it not true that column 2 included some errors and how
5 come, if that was the case, there were no errors in column 4?
6 A. Well, I don't know whether we can speak about errors. It is that
7 I never explained in the report the meaning of column 2. So we cannot
8 speak about errors. We --
9 Q. Yes, but this is a point of methodology. It would mean that in
10 the report there was the inclusion of persons or cases which should not
11 have been included for reasons of time and place; is that true?
12 A. I am sorry. Would you please repeat your question because I
13 didn't understand your point.
14 Q. Madam, in terms of methodology, the work that you have carried
15 out is based on the fact that in your previous report there were certain
16 cases referring to situations which should not have been included due to
17 reasons of time and place. Is that correct?
18 A. In our first report, not the addendum that we made now, we
19 discussed numbers that were adjusted from unknown places and dates.
20 There were no unknown places and that included in the figures I reported
21 in this study. However, table 2 was a general overview of survey
22 material. So there are different types of information in this table in
23 our report. We first reported all number, all records that were obtained
24 in the very beginning and then we reported, sort of intermediate step -
25 this is column 2 from table 2 - and in the end, we reported the numbers
1 that are directly relevant to the indictment period and indictment area.
2 And these numbers were discussed in the rest of the report. These numbers
3 don't include unknown dates, unknown places.
4 Q. No, Madam. I quite understand that. But in your report, number
5 one, you had column 2 of table 2, which apparently was wrong. Is that
6 correct? Let's put it in another way, which included figures which were
7 too high?
8 A. From the point of view of the indictment period, indictment area,
9 yes, column two includes numbers that are too high. But I don't discuss
10 these numbers in our report. We only mentioned these numbers to give you
11 some impression about how many records were excluded and for what
12 reasons. And in my addendum, I am even more specific about excluded
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if you are interested to ask
15 questions also about the part the Defence specifically asked for, I
16 indicate to you now that you used approximately 20 minutes that was the
17 maximum time you asked yesterday, for questioning this witness. So you
18 have three minutes left.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
20 Q. Madam, just very briefly, how come there have not been such errors
21 in the column, the last column of table 3 in your first report --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
23 MR. STAMP: I object.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Okay I understand.
25 MR. STAMP: The question includes a statement of something which
1 the witness has not accepted and is not in evidence.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I withdraw the question.
3 Thank you very much.
4 Q. Is it correct that a part of -- one and a quarter of victims were
5 injured or killed in the first period, the first 3 months of the
7 A. The number is 7.085, this is the number of wounded persons who
8 were wounded in the -- outside the indictment period.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could you
10 assist me in finally obtaining the answer to this kind question that I
11 have asked.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I earlier said that clear answers -- clear
13 questions give clear answers. I could add to that that politely put
14 answers give -- questions give perhaps the answers. But Madam Tabeau, I
15 think that Mr. Piletta-Zanin would like to know what part of the injuries
16 and the people killed took place in the first period, compared to the
17 other part of the conflict where he was not very precise, but you perhaps
18 could give us this precision, whether the other part relates only to the
19 period of the indictment or to the period of the whole conflict. So what
20 percentage of injuries and casualties took place in this first four months
21 compared the remaining month of the conflict or the indictment period.
22 And I think an approximate answer does not necessarily have to be three
23 digits after the column.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes. We need to compare two figures.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 THE WITNESS: Figure for wounded persons, 20.004. From column 3,
2 new. And figure 7.085. The 7.085 records are records that are unrelated
3 to the indictment period and indictment area. So a quarter, your
4 approximation, is almost correct. This even, I believe, more than that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if there is
6 any last question.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Madam, to the extent that your figures were rectified downwards
9 and there have been changes in the meantime, is it not true that all your
10 conclusions are relatively -- I mean, in a relative fashion, influenced
11 by these changes and that more specifically with reference to the rates
12 that you have determined; yes or no?
13 A. No, in fact, at all. Because the correction was made in regard to
14 the records excluded and not included in my study. So the numbers
15 presented in the demographic report that I submitted originally are all
17 Q. Madam, the rate -- the rate -- the rate of deaths, for instance,
18 is correct, at the very same time when you are stating that there were
19 fewer deaths than what you have put in your previous report. Is that how
20 I should understand this?
21 MR. STAMP: I am trying not to object --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's just see --
23 MR. STAMP: Same objection.
24 THE WITNESS: May I answer this question?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please. If you want to reread it on your
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 THE WITNESS: I read it again. The correction I made is related
3 to the excluded records, records that were not analysed in our demographic
4 report. So the rates presented in the report remain the same. And the
5 rates you have here in your report are also correct. Because there are no
6 specific dates and places in these rates.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I indicated that that would be your final
10 Mr. Stamp, would there be any need to re-examine the witness on
11 the basis of the further questions?
12 Judge Nieto-Navia has one or more questions to you.
13 Questioned by the Court:
14 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to put things
15 in summary. I understand you well, replicated column 1 is the same column
16 1 of the former table 2?
17 A. Correct.
18 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Replicated column 2 is the same column 2 of
19 the former table 2?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Replicated column 4 is the same column 3 of
22 the former table 2?
23 A. Yes. It is column 3, former table 2.
24 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes. So the changes are between the new
25 column 2 and the -- well, the new 3 is the correction to the former
1 column 2?
2 A. Yes. That is the situation.
3 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Column 4, former column 3, doesn't change?
4 A. Doesn't change.
5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: No further questions. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Since neither Judge El Mahdi nor I myself have any
7 further questions to you, Ms. Tabeau, this concludes your examination --
8 I said this before, but this was not the final conclusion. You are now
9 excused and I thank you for having come back to this courtroom.
10 Mr. Usher, would you please escort Ms. Tabeau out of the
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And could the copy that you used be returned to the
14 Registrar. [The witness withdrew]
15 JUDGE ORIE: From a technical point of view, I think the document
16 should be considered as being part of the report and the document has
17 been identified. Madam Registrar, what would be the best way of giving
18 it a number or and then what number or just -- perhaps you should find a
19 number which relates to the report itself and then.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: This addendum which has been drafted on the request
22 of the Chamber, including the request from the Defence, will have Exhibit
23 number 3731C.
24 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, for the
1 transcript, the Defence would like to state the offending of the rights
2 and would like to state, if you will allow me, that in relation to page
3 54 line 9, I would have asked a question -- it seemed that I would have
4 asked questions which were not polite, which is not true. The Defence
5 never lacked any courtesy or politeness for the simple reason, we did not
6 call the witness representative of the Prosecution, which she is. But we
7 would like to say that we were very destabilised here seriously
8 destabilised here --
9 JUDGE ORIE: What were the words that you used,
10 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if it were not representative of the Prosecution?
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] On page 54 line 9, I have
12 simply asked, I believe my system has been blocked, so like many others,
13 what I said was not in any case impolite or lacking in courtesy. If I
14 have asked to be given "yes or no" answers regarding the figures, this is
15 in order to save time, and not to be impolite. And I reiterate, that,
16 therefore, I believe that I have a right to state that the rights of the
17 Defence have been offended because the Court -- the Chamber had said it
18 in front of the witness.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please assist me. I have difficulty in
20 finding again your response to your objection, Mr. Stamp, or if -- we
21 know that we all have difficulties with LiveNote today.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you can find
23 it in 54.9. My question was the following: "Apart of one and half of
24 the victims were injured or killed in the first period, the first 3
25 months of the conflict."
1 JUDGE ORIE: I am seeking where I responded --
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And just below -- just above,
3 just below, below, line 17, you add this following: [In English] "that
4 politely put answers give questions give perhaps the answer."
5 JUDGE ORIE: If that was your point let me first find the place
6 where I responded to the objection of Mr. Stamp.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I believe that this is page
8 54, line 17.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is the second. But you introduced again
10 your -- that you did not say that the witness was a representative of the
11 -- of course, you did not repeat that at that very moment. But sometimes
12 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, and --
13 MR. STAMP: Perhaps if I --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. STAMP: If we can have a look at page 44 line 24.
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The first issue, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, was on
18 page 46 where you used the words "representative of the Prosecution." If
19 you say that at a later stage you did not use these same words, that is
20 perfectly correct. But not using these words does not always mean that
21 you are showing the politeness necessary. And I can tell you,
22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, apart from the words that you used, sometimes there are
23 other ways, the way you use your voice can be just as -- I am not just
24 talking about that one and only question, but it is also the general
25 attitude, the way you did put the questions to this expert witness, the
1 way you interrupted her, the way you treated her, all taken altogether,
2 and then using this tone while questioning, could give the result that I
3 indicated. I take notice that you take it that the rights of the Defence
4 have been violated in this respect and the Chamber does.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, is the Prosecution ready to call its next
8 MR. STAMP: We had not dealt with the issue of the exhibits for
9 Ewa Tabeau, had we?
10 JUDGE ORIE: We had given them a number, but we had not yet
11 admitted them into evidence. It was on the request of the Chamber, so
12 since the Chamber received what the Chamber would like to see, and since
13 we thought that the best way of adding it to the report of the expert
14 witness that, unless there is any objection at this very moment, we would
15 make that part of the report.
16 MR. STAMP: I think though, Mr. President, that we had deferred
17 dealing with all of the exhibits in respect to Ewa Tabeau.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I totally agree with you, we did that. Then we
19 are again dependent on the --
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: We will go through them at a rather low pace,
22 because especially numbers are very difficult to cope with, both for
23 those who transcribe the hearing and for the interpreters.
24 Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: P3729, CD-ROM; P3731, expert report of
1 Ewa Tabeau --
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The Defence has an objection
5 here. Because at the very same time that a reply was given by this
6 person earlier, it seems to us that mathematically speaking, the
7 conclusions of the report are faulty, partially or fully in the sense
8 that rates were drawn which we -- since we have different figures. So
9 rates were drawn from figures therefore, there are different figures.
10 And if we are covering the entire period, in this sense, the report
11 doesn't seem correct to us, doesn't seem truthful, and therefore it has to
12 be rejected. On principle, we are always making the same observations,
13 like the one we raised earlier, politely, and the issue of witnesses, we
14 still believe these are elements that are coming from the Prosecution and
15 should not be to opposed as evidence as they come from one party. Thank
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, any need to respond.
18 MR. STAMP: I don't think there is a need to respond. The thing
19 is that a proper response involves a complete assessment of what the
20 witness has just said. The witness has just said that the figures have
21 not changed, that what she has done now is to give a breakdown of the
22 figures that were not used in her report. Because questions have been
23 asked about rates in respect to the period before the indictment period,
24 that is a period outside of the study. She did that as a result of the
25 request of the Defence and it is not that there are differences between
1 one figure in one report, and this report. The difference is that these
2 are new figures. She did not, in her report, examine the period before
3 the indictment period began.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. It is -- the issue raised
7 by you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is not an issue of admissibility and in
8 respect of your repeated objection against I would say, testimony coming
9 from those who are employed by the Office of the Prosecutor, the Chamber
10 is aware of the position that the Defence takes, that, in general, that
11 no one could take the stand who is employed by the Prosecutor. At the
12 same time, as you might have noticed, in the Rules of Procedure and
13 Evidence there is specific mention made of those belonging to the Office
14 of the Prosecutor appearing as witness before a Chamber.
15 The objection is denied.
16 Madam Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3731.1, B/C/S translation; Exhibit
18 P3731A addendum to expert report of Ewa Tabeau --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This is only formally, but we
21 would like to state that our position is still the same as before.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. The objection is then
23 similarly denied.
24 THE REGISTRAR: P3731B, addendum to expert report of Ewa Tabeau;
25 P3731C, addendum to report of Ewa Tabeau; P3730, annex number one;
1 P3730A, annex number two; D154, facts cover sheet and chart; D155, chart
2 in B/C/S; D1551, partial translation; D156, article in B/C/S; D156.1,
3 partial translation; D157, chart entitled "sniper from 10/09/1992 until
4 10/08/1994 in B/C/S; D157.1, English translation.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, again,
7 formally speaking, our objection relates to all the addendum of -- or the
8 addenda of the Tabeau report. Thank you.
9 MR. STAMP: The Prosecution objects to D156. All we have here is
10 a figure from an article by someone unknown to the witness, and she says
11 the figure is wrong. It is something that is not of any assistance and
12 is not probative of anything.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar, might we have a -- might the
14 Chamber have a look at D156.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The objection will be -- is denied, but, of course,
17 the witness has been asked questions about it. She did not agree with
18 numbers in this article. So the probative value, I would say, at this
19 very moment, is still rather limited, that at least someone has published
20 at least these numbers were published and that the witness did not agree.
21 So -- but in view of the fact that they were published, and that fact of
22 course comes out, but just in order to give some guidance to the Defence,
23 if the Defence would rely upon these figures as according to the truth,
24 then, of course, the sources of these figures should be given in more
25 detail and there would be -- we would need an opportunity at least to
1 challenge these figures in one way or the other by the Prosecution.
2 So I am just explaining what -- not perhaps what but that this
3 document at this moment has a rather relative limited probative value.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I thank the Chamber for this
5 and I believe that we understood that what the Defence wanted to prove is
6 that there was kind of inflated figures here and the sources were unsure.
7 I don't think we will go there, but thank you very much.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then, having gone through the documents, I take it
9 that -- yes.
10 MR. STAMP: Yes, we would be ready for the next witness but --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, two minutes would not be wise.
12 MR. STAMP: However there is an issue we could use two minutes
13 in. It is in respect of protective measures for a witness that is
14 scheduled to come soon. Perhaps if we could go into closed session.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we could do that. We will now turn in closed
17 [Closed session]
13 Page 12668 – redacted – closed session
20 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
3 [Open session]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 WITNESS: ZINETA ARIFAGIC
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon.
8 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Can you hear me in a language you understand?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Arifagic, I take it, before giving testimony in
12 this court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a
13 solemn declaration that you will speak the truth the whole truth and
14 nothing but the truth. The text of this declaration will be handed out
15 to you now by the usher. May I invite you to make that solemn
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
18 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated. You will
20 first be examined by counsel for the Prosecution.
21 Please, Ms. Mahindaratne proceed?
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May I proceed, Mr. President?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Examined by Ms. Mahindaratne:
25 Q. Witness, could you please stated your full name and spell out
1 your last name.
2 A. Arifagic Zineta. A-r-i-f-a-g-i-c.
3 Q. What is your current occupation?
4 A. At the moment, I am a financial manager at a government
5 organisation. It is a foundation for sustainable development.
6 Q. At any stage, did you serve as the administrative assistant to
7 the director [Realtime transcript read in error "medical staff"] of the
8 Dobrinja hospital?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. When was that period?
11 A. In the period of time between May 1993 and I believe June 1996.
12 Q. You said you were the assistant -- administrative assistant to the
13 director of the hospital, is that correct?
14 A. Yes, it is. I was deputy director for nonmedical tasks.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It was not the precise
17 account of this witness on page 6810. There was a reference to medical
18 staff and not the director of the hospital.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Mahindaratne, would you please rephrase
20 your question, because it does not reflect the evidence given.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
22 Q. Could you please state your correct designation during the period
23 1993 and 1996, in what capacity did you serve at the Dobrinja hospital?
24 A. I was deputy director for nonmedical tasks financial and
25 administrative tasks.
1 Q. Did you serve in this capacity through the entire period that you
2 were working for the hospital?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. When was the hospital created could you just briefly give the
6 A. The hospital was set up in 1992 when the Dobrinja settlement was
7 closed off and it was not possible to go through on the one side. And
8 then Dr. Hajir and a couple of other doctors and medical technicians who
9 found themselves at Dobrinja set up this hospital. It was not officially
10 set up in any way, but it was just because of the need. In May 1992.
11 Q. Now, amongst your duties, were you also responsible for the
12 records archives of the hospital?
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am sorry, Mr. President.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It appears that on page 69
17 line 12 at the end of the line there is a question from my learned
18 colleague which does not appear in the transcript. Just before the words
19 "in May 1992."
20 JUDGE ORIE: I do not recall whether it was on a question that
21 the witness answers, "in May 1992."
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: The question, Mr. President, was when was the
23 hospital created.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That appears in line 69 -- page 69.6. And I think
25 that the witness added, "in May 1992" without any -- yes. I will check
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 that. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if it would be true that there was no question,
2 it could create no confusion whatsoever, I think, unless you would have
3 objection against the question. But I didn't -- I don't recall a
4 question being asked in that respect. So would you please be selective
5 in objections, especially, also think about the factual basis of it.
6 Please proceed.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. Could you please state as to whether amongst your duties you were
9 also responsible for the records archives of the hospital?
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this question
11 is a leading question and as a consequence, we would like to object to it
12 on these grounds.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is it a matter that is in dispute?
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] To a certain extent, yes,
15 because the very existence of these records -- the very existence of the
16 report is arguable from the point of view from the Defence.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I will rephrase it, of course.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Although it could not be said that there is no
20 leading element whatsoever in the question, the objection is denied.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Could you please repeat your answer to my question, again, to my
23 previous question as to whether you were at any stage responsible for
24 your -- for the records archives of the hospital?
25 A. Yes. I was not in charge of the register itself, but I was in
1 charge of the archives of the hospital.
2 Q. Can you describe to the Chamber the procedure involved in
3 recording the details of the patients who are admitted and treated at the
4 hospital, especially during the conflict period?
5 A. In other words, all the patients admitted to the hospital, either
6 wounded or ill they all went through the registration -- registrar's
7 office, which means we would take down their names, surnames, the year of
8 birth, the diagnosis, and we also marked whether they were kept for
9 treatment at the hospital or whether they were referred to any other
10 medical centres in case we found it impossible to treat them at Dobrinja
11 hospital, obviously if it was at the point in time when it was possible
12 to leave Dobrinja.
13 Q. And you said there was a procedure of registration?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What is the record in which all these details are registered
16 called, what is it referred to as?
17 A. That is the official register of patients.
18 Q. You made a statement to the investigators of the Tribunal at some
19 stage, did you not?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. At the time you made the statement, you handed over a batch of
22 documents to those investigators. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. Are those documents comprised of medical reports, death
25 certificates, and lists of patients admitted to the hospital? Is that
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. What was the source of those documents? From where did those
4 documents originate?
5 A. The source is the register and the files pertaining to the death
6 certificates that were issued.
7 Q. So those documents are official documents of the hospital. Is
8 that correct?
9 A. Yes it is.
10 Q. Prior to handing over those documents, did you compare the
11 entries containing those documents with the entries in the central
12 register to see whether they correspond correctly?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And did they correspond?
15 A. Yes. I believe that in a couple of cases we were unable to find
16 the entry in the register which could be linked up to the death
17 certificate. Perhaps it could have been that the patients in question --
18 either the page in the register was missing, which is not really likely,
19 or else that the patient might have been admitted to hospital without any
20 entries being made in the register.
21 Q. Whenever you found any discrepancy, did you point them out in the
22 statement that you made to the investigators?
23 A. Absolutely.
24 Q. When did you hand over these documents?
25 A. It was in 1995 I believe.
1 Q. Thereafter, investigators approached you again in the year 2002,
2 did they not?
3 A. Yes, they did.
4 Q. At that time you examined another batch of documents and verified
5 them or authenticated them as being documents issued by the Dobrinja
6 hospital. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. How do you recognise the documents as those issued from the
10 A. There was an official stamp of the Dobrinja hospital in all these
11 documents, as well as my own signature, to certify that I did hand in
12 those documents.
13 Q. So all those documents would contain your signature?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. If I show you those documents -- the documents are shown to you
16 again, would you be able to recognise them?
17 A. Absolutely.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please assist.
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I beg your pardon Mr. President. I withdraw
22 that. May the witness be shown Exhibit number P3738M, first.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mary?
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes. The translation is P3738M1.
25 Q. Do you recognise the document which was just shown to you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is your signature on that document?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. Do you recognise the seal of the hospital on the document?
5 A. I do.
6 Q. What is that document?
7 A. It represents the list of the killed and wounded following a
8 shelling and of people queuing up for humanitarian aid.
9 Q. Are the names of the persons admitted are in the list?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What is the date of admission?
12 A. The 4th of February 1994.
13 Q. Does the list indicate as to if the person so admitted
14 subsequently died or were discharged or treated?
15 A. On this list, we have names and surnames, the diagnosis, the
16 cause of the injury.
17 Q. And does it also indicate if the patients had died?
18 A. Yes, in some instances.
19 Q. Could you please state the name of the fourth patient, patient
20 number 4 in the list?
21 A. Ljusa Sabahudin.
22 Q. And the 12th -- patient number 12 on the list?
23 A. Just a moment. Spahic Fata.
24 Q. Patient number 15?
25 A. Hafizovic Elder.
1 Q. May the witness be shown Exhibit number P3738A, translation is
2 P3738 A.1. Do you recognise this document?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you recognise --
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Do you recognise your signature on the document?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you recognise the seal of the hospital on the document?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. Is this a document issued by the hospital?
11 A. It is.
12 Q. What is the document?
13 A. It is a death certificate.
14 Q. Could you state the name of the deceased.
15 A. Jadranka Tenzera.
16 Q. And what is the date of death?
17 A. The 4th of February 1994.
18 Q. The place of death?
19 A. The place of death is Dobrinja I. It is a part of the Dobrinja
21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number
22 P3738B, translation B1.
23 Q. Do you recognise this document?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. Do you recognise your signature on the document?
1 A. I do.
2 Q. Do you recognise the seal of the hospital on the document?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Is it an official document issued by the hospital?
5 A. It is.
6 Q. What is the document?
7 A. It is death certificate for the patient whose name is indicated
8 on this certificate.
9 Q. What is the name of the deceased?
10 A. Enver Mustagrudic.
11 Q. What is the date of death?
12 A. The 4th of February 1994.
13 Q. The place of death?
14 A. Dobrinja I.
15 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number
16 P3738C, translation P3738C1.
17 Q. Do you recognise your signature on the document?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. Do you recognise the seal of the hospital on the document?
20 A. I do.
21 Q. Is this an official document issued by the hospital?
22 A. It is.
23 Q. Is it a death certificate?
24 A. It is.
25 Q. What is the name of the deceased?
1 A. Saida Balicevac.
2 Q. What is the date of death indicated on the document?
3 A. The 4th of May 1994.
4 Q. And what is the place of death?
5 A. Dobrinja I.
6 Q. Can I take you back to Exhibit P3738M.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown again, Exhibit number
9 Q. Could you please examine these documents and verify if the
10 deceased whose name is recorded in P3738C is listed in P3738M, the list
11 of patients admitted on 4th of February.
12 A. I believe it is the serial number 20.
13 Q. What is the name of the person listed as number 20?
14 A. In the death certificate it is Saida Balicevac, whereas in this
15 report it is apparently Bakocevic. There must be a typing error.
16 Q. Can you compare these two entries and state as to whether they
17 relate to one and the same person?
18 A. On the list, if you refer to the diagnosis, and then if you refer
19 to the diagnosis in the death certificate, you can see that they are
20 exactly the same.
21 Q. How would you explain the different date of death in the death
22 certificate Exhibit number P3738C?
23 A. It must be a typing error, which you will admit was highly likely
24 under the circumstances.
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number
2 Q. Do you recognise this document?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Do you recognise your signature on the document?
5 A. I do.
6 Q. Do you recognise the seal, official seal of the hospital?
7 A. I do.
8 Q. This is a document officially issued by the hospital?
9 A. It is.
10 Q. Can you state what the document is?
11 A. This document is a death certificate.
12 Q. What is the name of the deceased?
13 A. Emin Kolar.
14 Q. What is the date of death?
15 A. 4th of February 1994.
16 Q. And the place of death?
17 A. Dobrinja I.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit P3738E
19 translation P3738E.1.
20 Q. Do you recognise the document?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. Is your signature on the document?
23 A. It is.
24 Q. Is it the official seal of the hospital on the document?
25 A. It is.
1 Q. Is it a death certificate issued by the hospital?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. What is the name of the decease?
4 A. Aisa Sito.
5 Q. And the date of death?
6 A. 4th of February 1994.
7 Q. Would you state where the place of death is?
8 A. Dobrinja I.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number
11 Q. Do you recognise the document?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. What is the document?
14 A. This is a list of persons injured and killed because of the
15 shelling of a queue for water.
16 Q. Do you recognise the signature on the document?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. And the seal -- the official seal of the hospital, is it on the
20 A. It is.
21 Q. The document contains the names or lists of names of patients
22 admitted to the hospital, is it not?
23 A. It does.
24 Q. How many -- I am sorry. I withdraw that.
25 What is the date of admission?
1 A. 12th of July 1993.
2 Q. What are the details given in the list?
3 A. First and last name of the patient, the type of injury, date of
5 Q. Does it give the date of injury?
6 A. It does.
7 Q. What is the date?
8 A. 12th of July 1993.
9 Q. Same day as the date of admission.
10 A. Yes.
11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number
13 Q. Do you recognise the document?
14 A. I do.
15 Q. Do you recognise the seal of the hospital and the signature on
16 the document?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is it the official document issued by the hospital?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What is it?
21 A. Death certificate.
22 Q. Can you please state the name of the decease?
23 A. Stela Tvrtkovic.
24 Q. What is the date of death?
25 A. 12th of July 1993.
1 Q. And the place of death?
2 A. Section C-5, which is also a part of Dobrinja.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number
5 Q. Do you recognise the document?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. Do you recognise your signature and the official seal of the
8 hospital on the document?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. This is an official document issued by the hospital?
11 A. It is.
12 Q. What is it?
13 A. Death certificate.
14 Q. Can you please state the name of the deceased, the place of death
15 and the date of death.
16 A. Jasminka Tvrtkovic, 12th of July 1993, section C-5.
17 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number
19 Q. Do you recognise the document just shown to you as an official
20 certificate of death issued by the hospital?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. Do you recognise your signature and the official seal of the
23 hospital on the document?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. Can you please state the name of the deceased, the date of death,
1 and the place of death.
2 A. Nedziba Mehonic, 12th of July 1993, also section C-5.
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number
5 Q. Do you recognise this document as an official certificate of
6 death issued by the hospital?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you recognise the official stamp and your signature on the
10 A. I do.
11 Q. Can you please state the name of the deceased, the date and place
12 of death.
13 A. Rahima Mehonic, 12th of July 1993, also section C-5.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number
16 Q. Do you recognise this document as an official certificate of
17 death issued by the hospital?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. Can you please state the name of the deceased, the place and date
20 of death.
21 A. Sadaeta Mehonic, 12th of July 1993, also section C5.
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number P3738J,
23 translation is J.1.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Would that be "K"?
25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Oh, I am sorry, I beg your honest pardon.
1 That would be K.
2 Q. Do you recognise this document as an official certificate of the
3 death issued by the hospital?
4 A. It is.
5 Q. Can you please state the name of the deceased.
6 A. Sulejman Selimovic.
7 Q. And the date of death?
8 A. 12th of July 1993, settlement or locality of section C-5.
9 Q. Date of death?
10 A. 12th of July 1993.
11 Q. Do you recognise your signature on the document?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. Do you recognise the official stamp of the hospital on the
15 A. I do.
16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown Exhibit number
18 JUDGE ORIE: Just for practical reasons, Ms. Mahindaratne, how
19 many documents would we go through? I mean, how many are remaining,
20 because I look at the clock, and if there would be any other issue, we
21 have just a couple of minutes to go. How many documents --
22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, I agree, Mr. President. I don't think I
23 will be able to conclude the rest of the documents today because I have a
24 few more documents left.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we will take the one who is in front of us
1 at this -- the last one, and then finish.
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown P3738L.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I said the one who you started with already, so
6 we will finish that.
7 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
8 Q. The document that we just handed over to you, contains five
9 reports, is that correct? 5 medical reports, 5 medical reports for 5
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you recognise your signature on the document?
13 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, if I may just point out, two --
14 three of these reports have already been admitted and I am only trying to
15 admit the balance two.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, to complete it, because I remember the first
17 one was admitted and I think the second as well. So please proceed.
18 MS. MAHINDARATNE:
19 Q. Is this an official document issued by the hospital?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you recognise the official seal and your signature on the
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you please turn to the medical report relating to Kuric, Fehma
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What is the date of admission?
3 A. Here I -- it is not very legible on this copy. There are two
4 dates. The 12th of the 7th of 1993, with the diagnosis of the
5 patient. And the one before I think is the 1st of July 1993, but you
6 can't see very well.
7 Q. So did you state the date 12/7/1993?
8 A. 12th of July 1993, could be the first number, and the second
9 number could be the 27th of July 1993.
10 Q. Could you please state the place where the person has been
11 injured, can you read that? Is that indicated on the document?
12 A. This upper part, I cannot see well.
13 Q. Very well.
14 Could you please refer to the medical record of Izet Colakovic.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, I didn't know that this one will
16 take more time than the previous one. Since this courtroom will be used
17 by another Chamber I think this afternoon, if I am well informed, we have
18 to interrupt here so you can continue tomorrow on this.
19 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Arifagic, we have to adjourn until tomorrow
21 because this courtroom is needed for another case this afternoon.
22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, are there any translation issues you would
23 like to draw attention to?
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. There are, but
25 they are very minor, so they are not even worth mentioning. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Then we will adjourn until
2 tomorrow morning, 9.00.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
4 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,
5 the 31st day of July, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.