1 Wednesday, 1 December 2004
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
6 the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Case
8 Number IT-01-47-T, the Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can we have the appearances for
11 the Prosecution, please.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
13 Honours, counsel and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the
14 Prosecution, Mr. Waespi, Daryl Mundis, and our case manager, Andres
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Can we have the appearances for the Defence, please.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President, good
19 morning, Your Honours. On behalf of General Hadzihasanovic, Edina
20 Residovic, lead counsel; Stephane Bourgon, co-counsel; and Muriel Cauvin,
21 legal assistant.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 And the other Defence team.
24 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. On
25 behalf of Mr. Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and Mr.
1 Mulalic, legal assistant -- Nermin Mulalic, legal assistant.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At today's hearing of the 1st
3 of December, the Chamber bids good morning to all those present. The
4 representatives of the Prosecution, the Defence, who are all present; the
5 accused, and all the personnel in this courtroom.
6 I understand Mr. Bourgon wants to take the floor and I give you
7 the floor.
8 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Good morning, Madam Judge. Good
9 morning, Your Honour. Good morning, Mr. President. Could we go into
10 private session, please, Mr. President.
11 [Private session]
12 Pages 12659 to 12667 – redacted – private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session, Mr.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. In open session,
23 let me say that we are waiting for the arrival of the witness.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good day, sir. I would first
1 like to check that you are receiving the interpretation of what I am
2 saying into your own language. If so, say yes.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can hear you and I understand
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You have been
6 called here as a witness for the Defence. Before you take the solemn
7 declaration, I'd be grateful if you could tell me your first and last
8 names, your date of birth, and your place of birth.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Ermin Husejnagic. I was
10 born on the 1st of January, 1960, in Zenica, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Are you currently
12 employed? Do you hold a position of any kind? And if so, what is your
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm employed in the Ministry
15 of the Interior in the Zenica/Doboj Canton. I work as the chief in the
16 forensics department.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You work for the Ministry of
18 the Interior in the Zenica/Doboj Canton? In what capacity, because I
19 didn't receive the interpretation of that. What is your actual position?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am the chief of the forensics
21 department, which is part of the crime police of the Ministry of the
22 Interior in the Zenica and Doboj Canton.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. In 1992 and 1993,
24 that's over ten years ago, did you hold a position? And if so, what sort
25 of position and where?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. At the time I also worked for
2 the police. But it was in the CSB of Zenica, the security services
3 centre in Zenica. I was involved in analysing mechanical traces at the
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Have you already
6 testified before in an international or national court about the events
7 in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992 and 1993, or is this the first time?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time I will be
9 testifying about the events that took place in 1992 and 1993.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As a forensics expert, have you
11 ever testified before the courts in your country about crimes and
12 offences of various sorts?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have never testified about war
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But have you ever testified
16 about ordinary crimes, common law crimes?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have testified on a number
18 of occasions with regard to such crimes.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could you please
20 read out the solemn declaration.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may sit down.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to
1 Defence counsel for the examination-in-chief, I would like to provide you
2 with some information. You've told me that you have already testified
3 before local courts as an expert, so you have met with the sort of
4 questions that an expert witness might be asked. The procedure we follow
5 here is different from the procedure followed in your country, but you
6 will here have to answer questions that will first be put to you by
7 Defence counsel, whom you have certainly met; they are to your left. The
8 examination-in-chief should take between an hour and an hour and a half.
9 I hope it will be less than an hour and a half.
10 After that stage the Prosecution, who are to your right, will
11 conduct their cross-examination. The questions they put to you will be
12 put to you to verify your testimony and to clarify some of the answers
13 that you've provided to Defence counsel. Once this stage has been
14 completed, Defence counsel may re-examine you.
15 Then the three Judges, who are sitting before you, and this must
16 be the case in your country, too, may ask you other questions. As a
17 rule, the Judges ask questions either to clarify your answers or they
18 base their questions on the documents shown to you by the parties or they
19 ask a witness questions because they feel there are certain gaps that
20 need to be filled.
21 Once the Judges have asked you questions and you have answered
22 these questions, the parties may ask you additional questions. So this
23 is how we will be proceeding, but you are certainly not very surprised by
24 what I have told you, since you must be familiar with such procedure.
25 I also want to point out two other things. As you have taken the
1 solemn declaration, you should not give false testimony. A witness could
2 be prosecuted for having given false testimony. I would also like to
3 remind you that if when answering a question you believe that your answer
4 could be used against you at a subsequent date, could be used to
5 prosecute you at a subsequent date, you may refuse to answer the
6 question. You have this right. A witness has the right not to answer
7 certain questions, but in such an exceptional case it is possible for the
8 Trial Chamber to oblige you to answer the question, but you are granted a
9 form of immunity. This is a very particular situation, but I wanted to
10 inform you of it.
11 Certain technical matters will also be discussed. If you feel
12 the question is too complicated, ask the party putting the question to
13 you to rephrase it. We don't have any written documents, so your oral
14 testimony is what is important. If you don't understand a question, ask
15 the party putting it to you to rephrase the question. If you feel that
16 there are any difficulties, inform us of the fact.
17 Having provided you with this information, I will now give the
18 floor to the Defence.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
20 WITNESS: ERMIN HUSEJNAGIC
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Examined by Ms. Residovic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Husejnagic.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. In addition to the information the Presiding Judge has just
1 provided you with, I would like to add something else. We both speak the
2 same language and you might want to answer my questions as soon as I put
3 them to you, but it's necessary for my questions and your answers to be
4 interpreted to enable everyone in the courtroom to follow us. This is
5 why I would be grateful if you could make a brief pause after I have put
6 my question to you, and only then should you answer the question. Have
7 you understood me?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, where do you live right now?
12 Q. In response to a question put to you by the Presiding Judge you
13 told us about your job, but tell me what is your profession?
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Given your position, I will ask
15 the registrar to make an order to delete the name of the street that you
16 live in.
17 Mr. Registrar, could you prepare an order to delete the witness's
18 address that appears in lines 23 and 24.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a mechanical engineer by
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Tell me something about your educational background.
23 A. After I had finished primary school I graduated from the
24 mechanical engineering university in 1997. In 1997 I enrolled in the
25 university for mechanical engineering and I graduated in 1993.
1 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, as a mechanical engineer, what sort of work did
2 you do before the war?
3 A. Before the war, I worked in the Zenica steelworks. I worked on
4 mechanical design -- in the mechanical design field. This was in the
5 work organisation -- in a work organisation in Zenica.
6 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, at any point in time did you start working for a
7 different company and where did you find employment if that was the case?
8 A. Towards the end of 1991 and at the very beginning of 1992 I left
9 the Zenica steelworks and went to the Zenica CSB, security services
11 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, before you started performing these duties or at
12 any other point in time did you serve in an army before the war, and if
13 so, did you have a rank of any kind?
14 A. After I have graduated, I went to the army, I went to the JNA,
15 the Yugoslav People's Army, and I didn't have a rank of any kind.
16 Q. When at the end of 1991 and at the beginning of 1992 you moved to
17 the CSB in Zenica, what duties did you perform there, or rather, did you
18 obtain any other professional knowledge that related to your duties?
19 A. Well, on the very first day in the CSB, in Zenica, I went to
20 Sarajevo, to the school in Vrace, to specialise there. This training was
21 -- involved training in the field of forensics.
22 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, where were you when the war broke out in April
24 A. I was in Vraca in the school up until the 4th of April. On the
25 4th of April the blockade of Sarajevo started and it was no longer
1 possible to reach Sarajevo. And it was particularly difficult to reach
3 Q. You said that you were an expert in the CSB. Who was your
4 superior and which body was your superior body?
5 A. The chief of the forensics department was my superior, and the
6 body concerned was the CSB.
7 Q. And in 1992 and in 1993, whose authority was the CSB under?
8 A. It was under the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and
10 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, at any point in time in 1992 or 1993 did the BH
11 army -- was the BH army a body that had authority over the CSB, or rather
12 over the civilian police?
13 A. No. The BH army never had authority over the CSB.
14 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, could you now tell me something about the
15 organisation of the CSB. Or rather, how was work within the CSB divided?
16 A. The CSB had a crime police department, it had a uniformed police
17 department, and it had an administration department, which had no
18 authority. So their employees didn't have police authority.
19 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, could you tell us who the members of the
20 uniformed police were.
21 A. Well, the members of the uniform police were police inspectors in
22 the headquarters and then the support unit, a special unit, and all the
23 policemen in the police stations covered by the CSB.
24 Q. Could you now tell me how the crime police department was
1 A. The crime police department was organised on the basis of
2 departments. Within the crime police department there was the department
3 for offences, for commercial crime, and there was the forensics
5 Q. As a CSB employee, which department were you a member of?
6 A. I was a member of the forensics department.
7 Q. In response to a question put to you by the Presiding Judge, you
8 said that you were an expert in mechanical traces. Tell me, what does
9 the term -- what do the terms "mechanical traces" mean? What sort of
10 work does this involve?
11 A. Well, mechanical traces means the traces left by various tools,
12 usually the traces left when burglaries were committed, traces on windows
13 or doors. And then this identification was called identifying signs on
14 certain items. Usually vehicles were stolen, so we would investigate the
15 traces left on vehicles. Then there were traces on various kinds of
16 locks, safe locks or ordinary locks. The purpose was to determine how
17 these locks had been picked.
18 Q. In addition to your work in the field of mechanical traces, did
19 you become involved in any other work? Did you become involved in
20 analysing traces of another kind? And if so, could you tell us which
21 field -- which other field you started working in.
22 A. Later on I became specialised in investigating traces left by
24 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, could you tell me how many individuals worked in
25 the forensics department, which is where you, too, worked.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. In 1992 and 1993 -- in 1992 and 1993, since there are a lot of
2 workers who were coming and going because of the conditions that
3 prevailed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the number of workers fluctuated,
4 but there were always at least ten employees.
5 Q. In your opinion, what sort of qualifications did these people
6 have, these people who worked in the forensics department? What sort of
7 professional level did they have?
8 A. All the employees in the forensics department had a basic form of
9 training at least. And some of the employees had also specialised in
10 certain fields.
11 Q. In 1992 and 1993, in which fields did you have experts and what
12 did they specialise in?
13 A. I'll -- Djaferovic Izet was the chief, the head of the
14 department. In addition to his basic training, he had specialised in
15 dactyloscopics and graphology. Dactyloscopics in English would be
17 Q. The interpretation was not correct. The witness pointed out that
18 the word "dactyloscopija" was not interpreted correctly. Obviously the
19 witness can understand English.
20 A. No, but I know it should be "fingerprints" in English.
21 Q. If I have understood you correctly, Mr. Dzaferovic, apart from
22 having basic training in forensics had specialised in the field you have
23 just mentioned. In which other fields were there employees who had
24 specialist knowledge?
25 A. Mr. Hadzic Redzo, apart from having basic forensics training, he
1 had specialised knowledge, too. Hadzic, Redzo. He had specialised -- he
2 was a professor of biology and chemistry. He had specialised in
3 biological chemical traces and in fingerprinting, too. As far as Redzo
4 Hadzic is concerned, he was the most senior employee we had. He also
5 founded a collection for the CSB.
6 And maybe I should tell you what this monocollection is. I
7 should clarify this. It's a collection of individual fingerprints of
8 individuals who had been processed, that is to say the fingerprints of
9 individuals who had committed crimes at the time. I had specialised in
10 mechanical traces.
11 Q. Thank you. Tell me, which area was the CSB active in, or rather,
12 where did your forensics department carry out analysis in the fields that
13 you covered?
14 A. The CSB operated in the area along the Bosna River, Davidovici,
15 Zepce, Zenica, Kakanj; and in the Lasva valley, Busovaca, Vitez, Travnik,
16 Novi Travnik, Bugojno, Donji and Gornji Vakuf. And in that same area,
17 the forensics department carried out its work.
18 Q. In the police administrations of these various places that you
19 have just mentioned, did you have forensics departments or did you have
20 other individuals who could carry out some of the investigations that
21 were required to establish certain facts?
22 A. In public security stations, we didn't have forensic departments,
23 we just had forensic technicians who would process crimes within the
24 terms of reference of the basic courts. That was the most frequent
1 Q. Tell me, Mr. Husejnagic, on whose instructions and how were crime
2 experts or forensic equipment used and engaged?
3 A. The most frequent situation was through the operations officer in
4 the security services centre who would, after having been informed about
5 a particular event, form depending on the kind of offence an
6 investigating team. So depending on the type of act, for instance
7 whether it's manslaughter, theft, or the like, a particular number of
8 specialists would be engaged for the investigation.
9 Q. Before the war and during 1992 and 1993, what kind of equipment
10 did the forensic department have available to it at the Zenica CSB?
11 A. The forensic equipment of CSB Zenica was quite appropriate and it
12 had all the necessary equipment and material for carrying out all
14 Q. Those resources and equipment in those days, that is the
15 beginning of 1993, were they also available to the military police of the
16 3rd Corps that was situated in Zenica?
17 A. In view of the specific nature of these resources which are part
18 of the forensic department, the forensic experts of the military could
19 not have the same kind of resources and equipment.
20 Q. To the best of your knowledge, what could they have had at the
21 beginning of 1993 to be able to do their work?
22 A. Apart for photographic equipment, the rest such as dactiloscopic
23 equipment or any other equipment, that is equipment for fingerprint
24 analysis, could not be obtained in Zenica.
25 Q. In view of this, tell me please: Was there any cooperation in
1 1993 between the military police of the 3rd Corps and the CSB, and was
2 your forensic equipment used for certain investigative activities when
3 these were done by military personnel? Do you know whether any such
4 cooperation was established?
5 A. Very frequently -- most frequently employees from the forensic
6 department would assist the military police, mainly due to the specific
7 resources that were required and the specific expertise of the experts.
8 Q. Tell me, Mr. Husejnagic, when this investigating team is formed,
9 depending on the type of offence and when it does its on-site inspection
10 for the serious crimes for which you are equipped, who is in charge of
11 the investigation?
12 A. The investigating judge is in charge of the investigation. He is
13 the head of the investigating team.
14 Q. Who issues assignments to your employees, that is to your
15 specialists on site? Who gives instructions as to the kind of
16 investigative procedures that the CSB will engage in when you do your
17 on-site inspection?
18 A. The head of the investigating team, which means the investigating
20 Q. Once you have completed your part of the job, that is you do what
21 you have been instructed to do by the investigating judge, who do you
22 submit your findings to?
23 A. We would submit our findings to the court that this judge comes
25 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, at some point in time to the best of your
1 recollection, that is in January 1993, did your forensic department and
2 inspectors of the security services, were they requested to do some
3 analysis in connection with the death of certain persons from Dusina
4 whose bodies were brought to Zenica?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, were you part of that team that did the on-site
8 A. Yes, I was a member of that team.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A small point of
10 interpretation. In your language you put the question to the witness:
11 The death or the murder, because in the French interpretation we heard
12 "murder" or "assassination." What was your question in your language?
13 In English it is death and in French it is murder. I don't know if it's
14 going directly from the B/C/S or through the English. So could you
15 please ask the witness the question again.
16 Just a moment, please.
17 The Prosecution. Yes.
18 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President, there is a similar issue.
19 Perhaps it's an interpretation issue. The witness was asked about an
20 on-site inspection, and if he could clarify -- it's the first time we
21 hear that, that there was an on-site inspection. That's obviously an
22 important issue. What does that mean? Was that the team which was
23 pulled together? That's called the on-site inspection team, or did they
24 in fact go to the crime scene? I'm just not sure how this term comes
25 into play, because that's not what the witness said. It was formulated
1 as a question.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Defence, could you please
3 ask the witness to clarify so that the translation in all three languages
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, let me cut up my previous question into several
7 simpler questions. So please answer them for me. At any point in time
8 were you a member of the investigating team which was asked to do some
9 examinations at the morgue in Zenica?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Who was in charge of those examinations that were carried out at
12 the morgue in Zenica?
13 A. The judge of the military court, Mr. Mirsad Strika was in charge
14 and another judge of the military court was present Vlado Adamovic.
15 Q. Tell me, you're going to the place, that is to the morgue of the
16 hospital in Zenica. Was it connected to the arrival of the bodies of
17 persons who had been killed in the village of Dusina and who had been
18 transported to the hospital in Zenica?
19 A. Yes, it was linked to that, to what you have just said.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that
21 everything has been clearly interpreted, because in answer to your
22 question I never spoke about murder; I spoke about persons who were
23 killed. So in our language, "killing" is death that occurs in battle.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In French the word is "tuer,"
25 in English, "killed." Perhaps the most precise term would be persons who
1 died. Because in "killed" there is a connotation of murder. So you have
2 the choice: Died, killed, or assassinated. So it is up to you to use
3 the most appropriate term.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I be more precise?
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Yes, please do, but I think in word -- in the war we use
8 A. In the police jargon we use the words nastradali, which means
9 those who suffered death.
10 Q. I think the Judge has given us some instructions now and we will
11 bear this in mind to make sure that the word we use can be adequately
12 interpreted into other languages. Thank you.
13 You have just given us the name of the investigating judge and of
14 another judge of the district military court who were present. I'm not
15 sure the names came out clearly. Could you repeat who was the head of
16 the team among the judges and which judge of the district military court
17 was also present.
18 A. I said a judge of the military court was in charge and his name
19 is Mirsad Strika. And also present for a part of those activities was
20 another judge from the military court, Vlado Adamovic.
21 Q. Who gave you specific assignments with respect to this particular
22 case as to the steps you need to take?
23 A. Judge Strika Mirsad.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I should like to show the
25 witness, with the help of the usher, Your Honour, a few documents. These
1 are documents that we showed earlier on. There's only one new document.
2 We have a sufficient number of copies for Your Honours and for my learned
4 Q. Would you be kind enough to look at the document number 1. It is
5 document P332, Exhibit P332. Would you please tell me whether this is a
6 document of the security services in Zenica.
7 A. Yes, it is. The initials in the lower-left corner, "SCSA," are
8 the initials of the person who actually drafted the document, but the
9 chief of the centre signed it. "SE" stands for the initials of one of
10 the employees of the CSB who was present during those activities.
11 Q. Tell me, Mr. Husejnagic, is this the standard format of a
12 document whereby the CSB submits findings to the court after having
13 carried instructions of the court [as interpreted]?
14 A. As the military court had requested certain investigations to be
15 done this was the most customary way in which these documents would be
16 submitted to the court.
17 Q. At the bottom of this document we see attachments and annexes,
18 and four are listed. Tell me, the annexes listed in this document, are
19 they the reports of authorised bodies compiled by them upon the request
20 of the court or are they something else? At the bottom of the document,
21 we just see the word "annexes."
22 A. Yes. I could perhaps through the signatures identify the
24 Q. We will come to those documents later. But in connection with
25 this particular document, is it customary to forward as annexes the
1 results of the investigations that you conducted, be they forensic or
2 other analyses?
3 A. The annexes reflect the activities that we engaged in.
4 Q. Thank you. At the bottom it says "photo record." Tell me, who
5 photographed the persons in the morgue in Zenica? Who prepared the photo
6 documents in this particular case?
7 A. In this particular case I took the photographs of all the ten
8 victims and bodies and I think that -- those documents should bear my
9 signature. And as we worked as a team, there should be the signature
10 also of Hadzic Redzo, another employee of our department.
11 Q. Tell me, Mr. Husejnagic, were those photographs in colour or
12 black and white?
13 A. These were black and white photographs.
14 Q. Will you now look at the document number 2. This is Prosecution
15 Exhibit 334 [as interpreted]. Do you know the person who compiled this
16 note? Sorry, 333. In line 24, there's an error in the exhibit number.
17 The exhibit number is 333.
18 A. I do know. Should I answer your question? I know the person
19 since 1991. That is when I started working in the CSB up until last
20 year. Last year, this person passed away.
21 Q. Tell me, was Redzo Hadzic was also present during this
22 examination in the hospital in Zenica?
23 A. Yes. Redzo Hadzic and myself did most of the work involved in
24 this event.
25 Q. You wanted to say something before I put my question to you. I
1 interrupted you. If there is anything you would like to add, please add
3 A. As far as Redzo Hadzic is concerned when I was at the forensic
4 department, I was his boss. That's why I know him.
5 Q. Thank you. Have a look at document number 3, please. The
6 document number, the exhibit number is P334. Do you know the person who
7 compiled this document?
8 A. Yes, I do, from before 1991. And to this day I can even
9 recognise the signature because even today I am this person's boss.
10 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, is that the same person whose initials you
11 recognised in the attached document and you said that this person had
12 probably drafted the attached document?
13 A. Yes, that's the person whose initials are "ES" for Enes Saric.
14 Q. Was Mr. Enes Saric also at the site where some of the
15 investigation was carried out under the supervision of Judge Strika?
16 A. Yes. Enes was involved in that work. He was an inspector, or
17 rather we called these duties the duties of an operations officer.
18 Q. Have a look at document number 5 now -- I apologise, under number
19 4. Could you tell me whose signature you can see here. Do you know
20 these persons?
21 A. Expert analysis performed by Redzo Hadzic and then there is the
22 person I have already identified, Enes Saric.
23 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, although you have already spoken about
24 specialists in your forensics department, could you tell me whether Redzo
25 Hadzic had any specialist knowledge in order to examine chemical and
1 other traces.
2 A. Redzo Hadzic was a professor of chemistry and biology. And in
3 addition to the basic training he had, he had also specialised in
4 biological and chemical traces and in fingerprinting.
5 Q. Please have a look at page number 1. Have a look at the last
6 sentence in the B/C/S version of the analysis. It says that it was
7 requested that it be established whether there were particles of gun
8 powder in the paraffin samples that were sent. Can you find that
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. A specialist in the CSB who gave you this task, who made this
13 A. The judge from the military court --
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the name.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Please have a look at page 2 of this analysis. And in the middle
17 of the second paragraph it says that the reaction in the paraffin test --
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. The name of the
19 judge doesn't appear in line 20, page 30. The witness mentioned the
20 name. He said it was Strika Mirsad, the judge of the district military
22 Q. I apologise for interrupting you.
23 In the second paragraph on the second page you can see something
24 that concerns the corpse of Pero Ljubicic. And here one sees that the
25 reaction on both -- the reaction of the paraffin test on both hands of
1 Ljubicic Pero was negative. Since you were involved in the duties you
2 have mentioned in the course of the war in the CSB, I want to know if you
3 have any knowledge that in the course of combat civilians were killed,
5 A. Yes, there were such cases.
6 Q. Thank you. Once you had carried out the tasks you were ordered
7 to carry out by the investigating judge, who would you forward your
8 reports to?
9 A. We would forward our reports to the court, to the courts where
10 the judge who had issued the order worked.
11 Q. You said that you personally, together with Redzo Hadzic, carried
12 out most of the work in the course of that analysis, and you said that
13 you took the photographs yourself. Tell me whether the photographs you
14 took reflected the wounds on the bodies that you photographed.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In addition to these photographs, did anyone else examine and
17 describe the wounds on those bodies?
18 A. Yes. This was done by a pathologist, Dr. Faruk Turkic. He was a
19 pathologist who worked in the Zenica hospital.
20 Q. Given the work that you did, do you know whether the pathologist
21 Dr. Turkic had specialist knowledge and was experienced in such work?
22 A. At the time he was the only doctor who worked for the high court
23 or the military court. He was the only doctor who did such work. And I
24 think that he was quite experienced.
25 Q. Tell me whether Dr. Turkic was also present when the
1 investigating judge was carrying out his work in the Zenica hospital
3 A. Yes, he was present. We were all present, all those so far
4 mentioned were present.
5 Q. Could you now have a look at document number 5. Mr. Husejnagic,
6 could you tell me drafted this document.
7 A. Dr. Faruk Turkic compiled this document.
8 Q. Who issued an order requesting that Mr. Turkic carry out this
9 specialist work?
10 A. The Judge Mirsad Strika did.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 To whom did the pathologist have to submit his report on the
13 analysis, carried out in accordance with the order issued by the judge?
14 A. Well, as in our case, to the institution where the judge worked,
15 and that was the Zenica military court.
16 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, since you were at the site, you were in the
17 hospital where you performed some of your duties and you took photographs
18 of all the bodies, tell me whether you were able to determine -- whether
19 you were able to notice the cause of death.
20 A. A forensics expert could provide you with the best answer, but
21 obviously it was a result of gunshot wounds.
22 Q. When examining them and taking the photographs, or rather later
23 when developing the photographs did you notice anything on those bodies
24 that was different from the sort of wounds that the bodies of those
25 killed in the course of combat usually had?
1 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Prosecution.
3 MR. WAESPI: Just an observation. This person here, the witness,
4 is obviously the head of the forensic department. And we've heard his
5 credential as a -- I think he had an engineering degree in mechanics.
6 I'm really not sure whether he had talk about the causes of death and how
7 it relates to other bodies, since he didn't -- clearly didn't perform any
8 autopsies on these bodies. So I would object to this question.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please carry on.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Q. Could you please tell me, given the time which you examined [as
12 interpreted] and photographed the bodies of these individuals, were you
13 able to notice any differences between the wounds that these bodies had
14 and the wounds that you would see when you examined the bodies of other
15 individuals who had been killed in the course of combat?
16 A. My answer would be similar to the previous one. A forensics
17 expert would be in the best position to answer your question. But given
18 the knowledge that I had, I didn't notice anything that might indicate
19 that they had died as a result of being tortured.
20 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, in the course of 1993, were you ever in a
21 position to see other bodies that had been brought in from areas where
22 there had been fighting?
23 A. Well, even in the course of 1992 I was present during
24 investigations of quite serious crimes.
25 Q. Since you saw such corpses that had been brought in from areas
1 where there was fighting, tell me whether on the basis of what you could
2 see those bodies had wounds -- gunshot wounds that were similar to the
3 wounds that the bodies that you saw in the Zenica hospital morgue had.
4 A. Yes, the wounds were similar.
5 Q. Please have a look on page 6 in the B/C/S version of the document
6 drafted by Dr. Turkic. Have a look at the general conclusion.
7 A. Yes, I've had a look at that.
8 Q. Under item 2 it says that the entry wounds were inflicted by
9 fairly powerful weapons from a distance of more than 1 metre. Tell me,
10 when it says that the wounds were inflicted from a distance of over
11 1 metre, why is it necessary for this to be stated in such a finding and
12 what does it mean, since later on you also specialised in the field of
14 A. Well, this statement was included because in the area around the
15 entry wounds no gunpowder particles were found. The traces of gunpowder
16 weren't found around the wounds on these corpses.
17 Q. My last question, Mr. Husejnagic, is: When you photographed the
18 bodies, were you able to find traces of gunpowder particles on the
19 photographs that you developed?
20 A. As far as I can remember, no, I wasn't able to find such traces.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Husejnagic.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have now
23 concluded my examination-in-chief of this witness.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. It is now 10.35.
25 We will have our break and we will resume at 11.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Defence has completed their
4 examination-in-chief. The other Defence team, do they have any
6 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions. Thank you, Mr.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In that case, I shall give the
9 floor to the Prosecution for their cross-examination.
10 MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
11 Cross-examined by Mr. Waespi:
12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Husejnagic.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. I have a few questions for you. It shouldn't take too long. Let
15 me go first to this paraffin test, as it's called. And you were asked a
16 few questions about this test, or rather the result. And this
17 Exhibit P341, which is in the bundle you have received number 4. We
18 don't need the document. I just want to ask you: You personally
19 conducted this paraffin test?
20 A. No, I didn't. I didn't do that analysis. The document is signed
21 by my colleague at the time, Redzo Hadzic.
22 Q. So it was him who conducted it?
23 A. Yes, he did it.
24 Q. Are you familiar with the --
25 A. Maybe I could specify. Part of the preparatory duties I was
1 involved in, that is taking the paraffin tests. But the analysis of the
2 tests, the results, was done by the signatory of this document.
3 Q. Are you familiar with the technique of the paraffin test?
4 A. Yes, I am familiar with it.
5 Q. Just a couple of questions in relation to that. So the way I
6 understand the test, you are looking, or the person who conducts the test
7 looks whether there are traces of firearms or gunpowder on the skin or
8 clothes of a body. Is that correct?
9 A. Could you please repeat the question.
10 Q. Yes. The way to conduct this test, the way I understand you, but
11 please correct me, is you are looking for traces, for residual elements
12 of gunpowder on the skin or the surface of a body. That's the starting
13 point for this test?
14 A. In the case of paraffin tests, we are looking for gunpowder
15 particle traces on the hands, on the hands of certain persons, depending
16 on the event.
17 Q. And that would mean, then, if you find any such traces that the
18 person has fired a firearm. Is that correct?
19 A. One cannot be 100 per cent explicit about it. There may be a
20 certain contact with a firearm, something close to a firearm.
21 Q. And that would also leave these traces?
22 A. I'm afraid I don't understand. After what? Once you do the
23 paraffin test, there should be no traces left where the paraffin test was
24 done, if that is what you meant.
25 Q. Not exactly. You said that traces are left either if somebody
1 has shot a firearm; or second, and that's a clarification by you, if
2 somebody came in certain contact with a firearm, something close to a
3 firearm. So in these two situations traces may be found on the hand. Is
4 that correct?
5 A. The task of the forensic expert is to analyse chemical traces.
6 But I do have certain knowledge about it. So if necessary, I can provide
7 a clarification. So in this case the question is: Who does this type of
9 Q. Yes. But let me just clarify what you told us before. When
10 there are traces on somebody's hands, either this person has shot a
11 firearm himself or he came -- and those are your words: "He came into
12 certain contact with a firearm, something close to a firearm."
13 So those are the two situations. Is that correct?
14 A. I need to explain the process of firing a shot, and this is
15 linked to ballistics, and that would need to be explained. What is the
16 distance? What type of particles are left on the hands, how they are
17 carried, et cetera. But this is the duty of a forensic expert for
18 chemical traces.
19 Q. Very well. That won't be necessary.
20 Let me ask you, if somebody shot a firearm, so obviously there
21 may be some traces on his hand, and later within an hour he surrendered,
22 was captured, and executed, if you then find the bodies and examine the
23 bodies, there may still be traces on the hands of this person because he
24 has fired a firearm before he was captured. Is that a fair assessment,
25 what I am saying?
1 A. The answer would be similar to my previous answer. The question
2 should be put to the person carrying out the analysis. The only
3 possibility would be for me as a -- I don't know, if I was here in the
4 capacity of a forensic expert then I might be able to say something.
5 Q. Let me ask you a different question. For how long do the traces
6 remain on the hands after a person fired a -- fired a gun or got into
7 contact. How long thereafter the firing are you as a specialist able to
8 determine: Yes, we do a chemical test; yes, there are traces?
9 A. It depends on a number of factors, but again, this is a question
10 that is identical to the previous one. I am a forensic expert for
11 mechanical traces and ballistics, currently.
12 Q. Now, the bodies you have examined, you were part of that team
13 pursuing these paraffin tests. The date you examined it was the 28th of
14 January or the 29th of January. If you look at P341. Again, this is
15 your number 4. Can you tell us again the date this test was conducted.
16 A. On the 28th of January were the following acts done: Photographs
17 were taken of all ten bodies, paraffin tests, and index fingerprints of
18 some persons who could not be identified by persons who were doing the
20 Q. So you're saying the 28th. But if you look at just a document I
21 referred you to, "Date 29 January, 1993. Subject: Re: Paraffin test,
22 expert analysis." It starts on 29th January, 1993. "Ten unknown bodies
23 brought from Dusina, Lasva," and so on, and so on. Perhaps you don't
24 recall, but here it seems to indicate that the tests were conducted on
25 the 29th.
1 A. We have to distinguish two stages: The paraffin test itself and
2 an analysis of the paraffin test. The paraffin test was done on the 28th
3 of January. And an analysis of those paraffin tests, or paraffin gloves,
4 as we call them -- perhaps I could explain the procedure to make it quite
5 clear to everyone, but again this is rather specific. The analysis was
6 done on the 29th. The test was carried out on the 28th of January and
7 then the analysis of the results was done the following day.
8 Q. Where were these tests carried out on the 28th? What was the
9 location? Was it also the morgue at the Zenica hospital or was it at a
10 different place?
11 A. No. In the laboratory of the MUP, that is the centre of security
12 services Zenica, in the chemical laboratory of that centre.
13 Q. Were you present when the bodies were brought in?
14 A. No. I was probably at my workplace in the security services
16 Q. So you were not present on the 28th when these bodies were
17 brought in.
18 A. I wasn't present in the morgue of the hospital. I was present in
19 Zenica. I think I was at my workplace.
20 Q. Anyway, do you know when the -- these persons, these ten persons,
21 deceased? Do you know the date?
22 A. I don't know. I think that the doctor made a rough assessment of
23 that date, but that was part of his assignment.
24 Q. If I tell you that the date was 26th of January that these people
25 deceased, can you now help us: If the paraffin test or the analysis was
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 done two days later how long the traces would still be discoverable?
2 A. This time I will answer the question. If somebody is killed,
3 traces of gunpowder particles remain on the hands for quite a long time,
4 on condition that the body is not bathed or something like that.
5 Q. And you asked the expert can he quantify, what does he mean:
6 "Quite a long time"? Three days? A week? Perhaps longer? Perhaps
8 A. Again this is part of chemical analysis. The gunpowder particles
9 that are found are quite resilient. The problem is to what extent they
10 will be preserved. The duration is up to the chemist. Most of these
11 products nitrates and -- nitrates are preserved for quite a long time.
12 Q. You're leaving it up into the air. Obviously, after two days
13 they were still visible. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Very well. And coming back to my earlier point, you cannot
16 really say whether the persons subject of these paraffin test who had
17 positive tests were not later, perhaps an hour, two, three, captured and
18 later executed. You cannot exclude that from a finding of a positive
19 paraffin test.
20 A. It's not up to me to make such an assessment.
21 Q. Thank you. Let's leave the paraffin test and let's talk about
22 the crime-scene investigation. I take it that during the war - and I'm
23 talking after you finished your education which was I understand stopped
24 on the 4th of April in Vrace in Sarajevo - did you conduct a lot of
25 investigations into violent deaths during the war period, let's say until
1 the end of 1995?
2 A. An innumerable number of cases.
3 Q. Now, did you go to the actual crime scene, the site, and look at
4 where the bodies, if there are bodies, are lying; look at the distances;
5 look at the location and perhaps make sketches? Did you do that?
6 A. No, we did not go on site because these happened in the area of
7 combat operations.
8 Q. But there must have been situations - just any situation, I'm not
9 talking about something specific - where you went to a crime scene and
10 investigated like policemen do. Are you telling us there was not a
11 single instance you went to a crime scene and conducted on-site
13 A. I said that I conducted any number of investigations, but not in
14 the area of war operations.
15 MR. WAESPI: Your Honours, with your leave, I would like to show
16 a witness a document which we have found in the last couple of days as
17 part of our searches. And it goes only to the credibility of this
18 witness of his previous answer. And unfortunately, I only gave it to the
19 Defence just before the break because I thought it wasn't possible. But
20 I would like to show him the document and I have sufficient copies I
21 believe for Your Honours. And perhaps the witness can tell us what this
22 document is all about, because it appears to contradict of what he just
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall give the floor to the
1 According to our decision regarding documents that are produced
2 after the closing of the Prosecution case, the Prosecution can produce
3 documents only on two grounds. First, the credibility or to refresh the
4 memory of the witness. So you're telling us you have a document which
5 would allow you to check the credibility of the witness.
6 The Defence.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, pursuant to your
8 decision, we of course have no objection if the Prosecution has a
9 document that could challenge the credibility of this witness. However,
10 the Prosecution during the last break gave us a document which, according
11 to what the witness had just said, that he had attended any number of
12 on-site investigations, cannot contradict his statement. I think the
13 Prosecution has not laid the grounds for showing this document. So I
14 think this is not one of the cases you specified in your ruling.
15 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, with Your Honour's --
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The question of credibility
17 relates to which particular point? Because the Defence is telling us the
18 witness has said that he didn't do crime-scene inspections. Do you have
19 a document showing that he did? To what particular does your document
20 refer when it comes to credibility?
21 MR. WAESPI: Yes. He said -- the witness that he did not conduct
22 on-site investigations because of a war situation. And we have here a
23 document, it's a short one, which is titled: Sketch of the crime scene,
24 and it relates to the recovery of 27 dead bodies. And the witness -- it
25 dates 15th September, 1995. And it shows in detail what the witness did,
1 that he went to the crime scene; that he took very, very detailed
2 sketches. Perhaps he forgot about it. I would just like to show him the
3 document and ask his comment about that.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a moment. I'll give you
5 the floor. You're telling us that you have a document, I see in the
6 English transcript, which is dated the 15th of September, 1995. That is
7 what the English transcript says, the 15th of September. And there's a
8 drawing of 27 bodies. And does this relate to the on-site inspection for
9 these persons that we're talking about or is it another on-site
11 MR. WAESPI: It's another on-site inspection, something that the
12 witness has denied that he did. That's why I would like to show him
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Defence.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if you look at
16 page 41, line 20, the witness said: I was -- "attended an innumerable
17 number" of investigations, but did not carry out on-site inspections in
18 combat areas.
19 Therefore, a document from 1995 can be covered by these
20 innumerable on-site inspections that he has referred to, so I don't see
21 how it contradicts that he had said.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But the witness said, as
23 you yourself say on page 41, that he didn't go on site. But we have a
24 document showing the opposite, apparently.
25 Mr. Usher, before showing the document, the Judges wish to have a
1 look at it.
2 Show this document to the witness and we'll see what he can say.
3 MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much.
4 Q. As you heard, Mr. Husejnagic, this is a document. You'll see it
5 because it appears that you signed it dated from 15th September, 1995.
6 And it's a location Oborci in Donji Vakuf. And perhaps you can tell us
7 how it came about that you made these very detailed drawings.
8 MR. WAESPI: This is the English translation. I don't think he
9 needs to say that. And, yes, that's the first page of ...
10 Q. And perhaps if you can tell us the title, what it says, in your
12 A. The drawing of the on-site finding. This is a document that I
13 compiled, but this is an investigation that took place on the 15th of
14 September, 1995, after the cessation of hostilities in that area. I may
15 add, this particular case, we had here 27 captured persons from the area
16 of Kljuc, I think they were, who had been killed near the elementary
17 school in Oborci near Donji Vakuf. And the investigation was done on the
18 15th of September when there were no combat operations in that area.
19 Q. And can you tell us what you did? Did you -- is that the actual
20 scene where people were deceased? Because I see rifle bullets, and so
21 on, by a dead body. Was that the area which you believe was the crime
22 scene were these people were killed?
23 A. Are you referring to this event of the 15th of September, 1995?
24 Q. Yes. Did you find all these bullets on the ground by these
25 various bodies, as listed on page 2?
1 A. Well, it's not a matter of bullets. Under 1 there was a group of
2 77 cartridges, a group of cartridges. And there were seven 8.62 times 39
3 cartridges. And there were four bullets and the cartridges were of the
4 calibre that I have mentioned. I think everything is clear here. I
5 don't know what else I could clarify.
6 Q. And these bullets you found by the bodies?
7 A. The cartridges, on the whole, they are cartridges.
8 Q. Yes. You found those by the bodies?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. Now, why did you go there, to this scene?
11 A. Well, we were obeying the order issued by the judge. Idriz
12 Katkic, I think that's his name.
13 Q. And if you go to the last page of this document, just the last
14 page. Did you make this drawing yourself?
15 A. I think that I was helped by a forensics expert from Donji Vakuf,
16 Bagori Casim [phoen] as far as I can remember, but this is another event.
17 This is an on-site investigation after the cessation of hostilities. If
18 we compare this to this case -- well, at the time we were carrying out
19 investigations, some of the investigations, in the morgue of the Zenica
20 hospital. But we didn't go to the site. This was ordered by military
21 judges. And in 1995 I think the judge was Idriz Katkic. And in 1993 I
22 think the judge was Mirsad Strika.
23 Q. And just going back to this last page, I just see these four
24 bodies lying there. Am I correct? These signatures, four bodies, two in
25 the middle of the road and two other ones north-east of the first two
1 bodies. Am I reading it correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And what do these numbers mean? If you look at the body most
4 north, 37/95, what does that mean?
5 A. That's the number of the person who was killed. And he is
6 recorded in a list of unidentified bodies. This list was compiled by the
8 Q. Do you know when these people were killed or deceased, these four
9 people we see the drawings of?
10 A. This relates to the 28 of them, not just to these four bodies.
11 We found them at that site after the cessation of hostilities, but I
12 don't know when exactly.
13 Q. Okay. Thank you very much for helping me on this document.
14 Now, let me go back to what you just told us a moment ago. I believe you
15 said that you did not go to Dusina, arguably the scene of these events in
16 January 1993. Is that correct?
17 A. I didn't go. That's correct. That's what I said.
18 Q. You as an investigator or as a crime-scene specialist, would you
19 have liked to go to Dusina to see what the real causes of these deaths
20 were, the circumstances?
21 A. As far as the fighting is concerned -- well, when there was
22 fighting we only worked when we received orders from judges from military
24 Q. Now, you personally --
25 A. So I as a specialist couldn't act independently.
1 Q. Now, I believe you may have answered that before to questions
2 from the Presiding Judge. You were never interviewed in relation to by a
3 judge or by another policeman in relation to these events at Dusina?
4 A. The tasks that I had, the tasks that my department performs now,
5 well we were involved in the technical aspect of the work: recording
6 traces; making sketches such as the one we have before us; taking
7 photographs; finding fingerprints and other traces, on the basis of which
8 light is shed on the event. But that aspect has to do with the work of
9 an inspector.
10 Q. Are you aware that anybody from your department or from somewhere
11 else did go to Dusina and make this nice drawing you have discussed a
12 moment ago? Are you aware of any such crime-scene sketch being done in
13 relation to Dusina?
14 A. No one from my department did that, but there is nothing else
15 that I know about it. As I have already said, because of the fighting we
16 did not go to the scenes.
17 Q. Do you know whether there was fighting in Dusina at the time you
18 became involved into the -- these investigations into the bodies?
19 A. Well, it's difficult to say now. Perhaps we would have gone
20 there, but the judges were afraid. They were against us going. And we
21 couldn't go without the judges.
22 Q. Which judge was afraid? Can you give us a name?
23 A. Well, in that specific case the judge was Mirsad Strika.
24 Q. And he told you he was afraid to go -- or that you went to
25 Dusina. Is that what you are saying?
1 A. Well, you know, Ermin Husejnagic couldn't decide on such matters.
2 Someone assesses security here too, you know. Perhaps you don't and
3 perhaps others don't. I don't know if that's clear or not.
4 Q. But he told you he was afraid?
5 A. Well, he was responsible for issuing such orders. For the sake
6 of security, for the sake of his safety and our safety, I assume he took
7 the decision he took.
8 Q. Let me ask you about these photo documentations. I believe you
9 said you personally photographed the bodies, the ten bodies, in black and
10 white. And is it true that you put together a documentation containing
11 these photographs?
12 A. I think so. Yes, that's certain. If you show me something like
13 the text you showed me a minute ago, I could tell you.
14 Q. Do you know where the original is of this photo documentation?
15 A. I know we handed it over to the military court, but right now I
16 don't know where it is.
17 Q. Where are they normally kept after a case is finished or shelved?
18 Where are these original documents usually kept?
19 A. Well, this was a military court case, so the original documents
20 should be sought via those channels. Or perhaps other bodies had
21 received this material apart from the military court. But after the
22 cessation of hostilities, I don't know where those documents were
23 forwarded to.
24 Q. Let me go to the last issue, that's document number 5 in your
25 bundle. It hasn't been assigned yet a number. If you can have a look at
1 document number 5. It is a report titled: External description of the
2 bodies from Lasva near Zenica, if I have the right translation. Do you
3 have that in front of you?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Can you help us? The bodies, the way they are described, it
6 doesn't really say the names of these bodies. Can you help us and
7 perhaps you can relate to the other documents in your bundle numbered 1,
8 2, 4. Which, for instance, is body number 1 in parenthesis or slash
9 marked 2? Can you give us the name of this body? Perhaps document
10 number 3 or document number 4 may help you.
11 A. 1 through 93. Document number P334.
12 Q. So --
13 A. 1/1993 [as interpreted], this number means that it's the
14 unidentified body. 1 through 1993. This body was registered in the body
15 of the CSB in 1993. It was registered as unidentified. And this body
16 must have the same number on the photo record. Perhaps what the doctor
17 said when it says marked 2. This is 2 through 93. This means 2 through
18 93, and that would be Voja Stanisic. I'm referring to document P334.
19 That's how I found the name.
20 And I'm looking at document number 5 compiled by this doctor,
21 body number 1. But there was a 2 placed by the photograph. I think the
22 photograph started with number 2, which is why this is how everything has
23 been presented.
24 Q. So --
25 A. It's a bit confusing.
1 Q. [Previous translation continues]... summarise what I understand
2 you are saying. So the first body as described by the doctor, in the
3 report of the Dr. Turkic, the first body would be, and that's a
4 cross-reference to document P334, would be Vinko Kegelj?
5 A. No. 2 through 93, that's what I said. 2, it's marked "2."
6 That's the number that we use in the register of unidentified bodies,
7 which I referred to a minute ago.
8 Q. So --
9 A. 1 through 93, 1/93, if we have a look at the doctor's document,
10 body 1. This is on page 5 of the doctor's document, body number 9. Is
11 that clear now?
12 Q. So the name of body number 9 on the document would be whom, if
13 you give him a name, body number 9?
14 A. It would be Vinko, son of Matija. Vinko, son of Matija, from
16 Q. And that would be Vinko Kegelj ?
17 A. Well, let's be clear. I don't know anyone here. All I know is
18 how this is recorded. And it's on the basis of the way that this was
19 recorded that I have provided you with these clarifications.
20 Q. Okay. I'm not entirely sure whether I'm clear. Tell us, looking
21 at the report of Dr. Turkic the first body he discusses is called body
22 number 1, marked number 2. What's the name of this body, in your
24 A. Stanisic, Vojo.
25 Q. And the second body, number 2, marked 3. Who would that be?
1 A. 3/93, Pero Ljubicic. I'm referring to document P334 now. 1
2 through 93, 2 through 93, 3 through 93; these are the numbers we placed
3 by the bodies when photographing them. And this is how the bodies were
4 identified, but the doctor followed an order of his own and he recorded
5 them under numbers of his own as a doctor.
6 Q. Very well. I understand now. Let's continue it step by step.
7 The third body in the doctor's report on page 2, it's called body number
8 3, marked 4. That would be?
9 A. Franjo Rajic.
10 Q. And body number 4, marked number 5 would be?
11 A. Augustin Rados.
12 Q. Body number 5, marked 6 would be?
13 A. Stipo Kegelj, son of Mato.
14 Q. Body number 6, marked 7?
15 A. 7/93, Zvonko Rajic.
16 Q. Then body number 7, marked 8?
17 A. This document -- in the last paragraph of this document it says
18 that body 8/93, it says that the above-named citizens were unable to
19 identify the body, but they provided names of people who went missing
20 from the Dusina area, namely Pero Rajic, son of Marko, and Mladen Kegelj,
21 son of Jozo.
22 I remember that we took the fingerprints of this person's right
23 index finger. And when making a comparison, when comparing this
24 fingerprint that was taken from body 8/93, when we compared this
25 fingerprint with the fingerprints we had in the database of the police
1 station in Zenica, it was determined that the person in question was
2 Mladen Kegelj. This is in document P333.
3 Q. And --
4 A. In the last paragraph of that document it says: "Body number 8
5 was identified on the basis of the right index fingerprint. The body is
6 that of Mladenko Kegelj, born on such-and-such a date in Dusina."
7 Q. And body number 9 marked number 1 would be whom?
8 A. Vinko Kegelj, son of Mato 1 through 93.
9 Q. And the last body, body number 10?
10 A. 10/93, Drazen Kegelj, Drazenko Kegelj.
11 Q. Thank you very much for this clarification. Now, were the bodies
12 opened by the doctor?
13 A. The doctor didn't open the bodies. The doctor performed an
14 external examination of them.
15 Q. Now, how long did he take to externally examine all these ten
16 bodies, if you recall?
17 A. I don't think I can remember that now.
18 Q. Do you remember whether any bullets, any bullets, were found and
19 indeed collected, noted somewhere?
20 A. I can't remember any bullets being found. You mean bullets,
21 don't you, parts of the bullets? If we had found anything, this would
22 probably have been recorded in some way.
23 Q. And the fact that it's not recorded, at least I don't see it,
24 means that he did not find any bullets?
25 A. Well, these bodies were brought to the morgue from the scene. At
1 the time it wasn't the cantonal hospital in Zenica. At the time there
2 was no cantonal hospital. So the cartridges or the bullets that caused
3 their death couldn't have been brought with them.
4 Q. Now, looking at these ten bodies, I don't know whether you
5 remember, do you remember whether they had wounds on their backs, entry
6 wounds, on their backs?
7 A. The forensic expert in medicine should have made such an
8 assessment, because - how should I put this? - the way in which this is
9 determined is quite specific. So an expert in forensic medicine would be
10 in a position to provide you with precise information about this.
11 Q. Well, earlier on you were asked a question -- to compare
12 different types of casualties and perhaps you have acquired certain
13 experience. If you don't know, it doesn't matter.
14 But let me just refer you to the first body on Dr. Turkic's
15 report. It's on the first page, and it's the last paragraph of the
16 descriptions of body number 1. So please go to your bundle, number 5.
17 It's the first page -- yes, that's the page. Body number 1, marked
18 number 2. Just go down perhaps 15 lines. And in your version, there --
19 it -- five lines before the end of the discussion of body number 1. It
20 says, and I quote: "There are five entry wounds -- entry wound openings
21 in the region of the right scapula and at the back of the right upper
22 arm. There are five exit wounds on the right front side of the thorax
23 and on the right upper arm."
24 Now, my question to you is: From your experience, these five
25 entry wound openings in the region of the right scapula, can you assist
1 us what the scapula means and its technical -- don't worry if you don't
2 know. Perhaps you remember having seen the body, having seen the entry
3 wounds. Do you know what scapula means?
4 A. Usually you refer to the chest, the left and the right part. So
5 reference is being made to the rib cage.
6 Q. Well, the chest, usually that's thorax. So scapula would be, in
7 medical terms, the shoulder blade, just to tell you that. Have you heard
8 of that, scapula being the shoulder blade?
9 A. These are medical terms, front and back side. There are
10 expressions when we used about the chest from the front and the behind.
11 After all, these are medical terms.
12 Q. So do you recall the body -- this first body number 1, that it
13 had entry wounds at the back shoulder blades, five entry wounds, and then
14 it comes out at the thorax, that's basically the breast. It's a large
15 area, can't be more specific. Do you recall that in relation to body
16 number 1?
17 A. After so many years, it's hard for me to remember with any
18 precision. I can just make a guess.
19 Q. Perhaps -- you don't need to do that. Perhaps one body which may
20 have sticked out is body number 4 and you told us that was Augustin
21 Rados. If you can go to page number 2 and it's also in your version on
22 page number 2 the towards the end. But in fact in the English version
23 what I want to talk about is the last paragraph. And in your version
24 it's on page number 3, the top of page number 3, Mr. Husejnagic.
25 Let me quote: "This body, Augustin Rados, there are 17 entry
1 wounds inflicted by firearms on the front side of the thorax and on the
2 abdomen. On the back, there are eight exit and three entry wounds in the
3 region of the right scapula."
4 Do you remember a body that's been so riddled by bullets from
5 both sides? Do you remember this specific body?
6 A. Not with precision. I have a hazy remembrance.
7 Q. Can you tell us about this hazy remembrance. What did you see?
8 How did the body look like?
9 A. Unless I could look at some documents, I'm unable to say
11 Q. Well, the documents you have in front of you, that's all we have
12 today. Does it jog your memory, any of the documents? You can also read
13 the whole paragraph of body number 4. It tells you -- he was, I guess,
14 unusually tall. He was 196 centimetres tall and about 30 years of age.
15 A. A moment ago you showed me another document with 28 victims.
16 After so much time and after so many events, it's hard to remember
17 anything well enough for me to be able to give you any concrete comments
18 regarding the injuries and the like.
19 Q. Very well. Were you surprised to see, perhaps you and other
20 people, that these people were shot from two sides or at least some of
21 them were -- had entry wounds, both at the front and at the back? Did
22 that surprise you, compared to other bodies you have seen in the course
23 of that time?
24 A. It was no more unusual than the other events. Now, from these
25 descriptions, it is obvious that automatic firearms were used. I could
1 just give you an example. For example, the speed of firing of one type
2 of such firearm.
3 Q. Do you remember whether these bodies were filmed, the dead bodies
4 as appeared, naked bodies? Do you remember that they were filmed?
5 A. We didn't do that part of the work, nor did I see anyone filming
6 the bodies with a video camera.
7 Q. Is it normal practice to film the bodies, or would that be
8 something unusual in your experience?
9 A. The CSB in Zenica in those days did not have a video camera, at
10 least my department didn't have one. Maybe somebody might have had it in
11 private possession.
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 MR. WAESPI:
14 Q. Let me just ask you another small subject. Before you testified,
15 the Defence informed us in a brief note of what you were going to talk
16 about. And it says that families were notified in relation to, I take
17 it, these bodies. Were you involved in identification of the families of
18 the persons we discussed?
19 A. That part of the work was done by the inspector of the CSB, Enes
20 Saric, together with the judge. I assumed the judge, Iset Strika --
21 sorry, Mirsad Strika was also involved.
22 Q. Do you know when that was done?
23 A. On the 28th of January. That was on that day. Now, whether some
24 additional things were done the following day, I don't know. But I think
25 that they managed to have almost all of the ten bodies identified on that
1 day. I know there was talk that there was need to go to the morgue once
2 again to examine the bodies. I don't know, therefore, whether a part of
3 the work was left for the following day.
4 Q. Do you know whether -- sorry?
5 A. It doesn't matter.
6 Q. Do you know whether these persons who contacted the family
7 members, Mr. Saric or perhaps the judge, whether they had to travel to
8 see these family members to inform them?
9 A. I don't know that. As far as I know, they came themselves. They
10 came of their own accord. Somebody from the army was present,
11 representatives of the HVO, and some other citizens. And the judge,
12 Vlado Adamovic would drop in, too. Now, what was the reason for this,
13 I'm not sure. Maybe he did part of that work; I don't know for sure.
14 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Husejnagic. I appreciate your answers.
15 MR. WAESPI: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Defence.
17 Re-examined by Ms. Residovic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Husejnagic, you were shown a document that
19 you drafted in 1995 in the area of Donji Vakuf. Tell me, please, from
20 1992 until about the middle of 1995, who controlled Donji Vakuf?
21 A. I know that we did on-site inspections as the CSB when explosives
22 were placed on the bridge at Donji Vakuf. After that inspection, we no
23 longer had access to Donji Vakuf.
24 Q. Was the Army of Republika Srpska there?
25 A. Yes. After that event. I don't know exactly when this on-site
1 inspection was done, but I know that my boss at the time, Judge Izet did
2 the inspection. And after that the Army of Republika Srpska would not
3 allow access to Donji Vakuf.
4 Q. Answering questions from my learned friend you said you went to
5 the crime scene after the cessation of hostilities. During that
6 inspection, was Donji Vakuf liberated once again and placed under the
7 control of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
8 A. Yes. We may have been maybe the third team that entered that
9 area, after the Army of Republika Srpska had left.
10 Q. Answering a question from my learned friend you said that you
11 attended a large number of on-site inspections during the war. Was this
12 one of the ones that you attended?
13 A. Yes. I told your colleague that with respect to that event I
14 made the sketches of the crime scene, and I think I also took photographs
15 of the victims.
16 Q. You also told my learned colleague on page 41, line 20, that you
17 didn't do on-site inspections in areas of combat operations. Is that
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. When you went to carry out this on-site inspection in liberated
21 Donji Vakuf, there was no fighting in Donji Vakuf at the time. Is that
23 A. Yes, that's right. There was no combat. Now, exactly where the
24 separation lines were just then, I don't know. But they were quite
25 removed from the crime scene.
1 Q. At the time you went to carry out this on-site inspection, the
2 bodies that you drew were on the spot where you found them, or had they
3 been already moved from another location?
4 A. As far as we knew, and judging by the traces that we found on the
5 crime scene and our conclusions, they were on the very spot where the
6 injuries were inflicted as a result of which they passed away.
7 Q. Regarding the case that is before this Trial Chamber, the bodies
8 you took photographs of and did other activities together with your
9 colleagues with respect to them, where were those bodies when you were
10 assigned the task to do these tests?
11 A. Those bodies had already been brought to the morgue. This is a
12 separate section of the pathology ward where Dr. Faruk Turkic, the
13 pathologist, works.
14 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, as part of your overall activities in the CSB,
15 were you ever aware of a case when the judge inspecting bodies brought to
16 a place which is quite some distance from the crime scene, would he give
17 instructions for those bodies to be taken back and placed on the spot
18 where they died?
19 A. This never occurred in my career.
20 Q. So these two cases are quite different, because in that case the
21 bodies were on the scene; and in this case the bodies were in hospital.
22 A. Yes, that's right.
23 Q. Also you started answering a question from my learned colleague
24 when he mentioned that one body was hit by 17 rounds. You said that the
25 conclusion to be drawn was that an automatic weapon had been used. Tell
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 me, what is the speed with this an automatic rifle can fire a burst of
2 fire, a large number of bullets?
3 A. Depending on the type of automatic weapon, a Kalashnikov was
4 frequently used and it can fire 150 rounds per minute. A light
5 machine-gun, M-84, 1.000 rounds a minute.
6 Q. Thank you. And my last question you answered, saying that Judge
7 Katkic had given you instructions to carry out certain activities in
8 Donji Vakuf. And Judge Strika, instructions with respect to the bodies
9 from Dusina. Tell me, as specialists, can you act contrary to or without
10 a decision of the investigating judge who is in charge of these -- this
11 part of the procedure?
12 A. I've already answered that question. We cannot be independent in
13 our work.
14 Q. Thank you very much.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further
16 questions for this witness.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The other Defence team?
18 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
20 Questioned by the Court:
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber has some questions
22 for you, and specifically I would like to show you a video which was
23 admitted into evidence.
24 So, Mr. Registrar, would it be possible P718. Could we screen
25 it? It has already been shown. The Prosecution produced this. It is
2 MR. WAESPI: Yes. Perhaps we can assist. It should be running
3 from our system.
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 MR. WAESPI: We are ready to play it, Your Honours, if you want
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. You are now going to
8 watch a videotape and you will comment on it. I'm showing you this video
9 in view of the fact that you told us that you took part in the
10 investigation into the deaths of certain persons, and this video shows
11 the bodies. We will ask you for your comments.
12 So could the Prosecution play the video through their system.
13 [Videotape played]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we eliminate the sound?
15 It would be better. No sound and no comments, just the pictures, please.
16 [Videotape played]
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can we stop now?
18 Look at this picture closely. You see a body. Look at the neck. As a
19 specialist and a forensic expert, the trace one sees on the neck, was it
20 caused by a bullet or by some other means? What would you say to us as a
22 A. A competent expert for body injuries is the medical forensic
23 expert and this shot is not too clear. I can make a judgement
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When the forensic medical
1 expert described the bodies, were you present? Were you with the expert
2 when he was describing the bodies?
3 A. I was present when these examinations were done. I did not
4 assist the pathologist. He had his own assistant for that. I just took
5 the photographs.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see. But you were present.
7 What I'm showing you on this neck, you must have seen it. It's visible.
8 A. Did I see it then? Now, I see it now. And I don't remember
9 seeing it then.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see, you don't remember.
11 A. I think at the time, no such traces were evident.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You told us just now that you
13 were -- that you had certain knowledge about bullets and projectiles.
14 Can you confirm that you have some knowledge about gunfire. You have
15 such knowledge or not? What are you telling us?
16 A. I do have knowledge. Are you referring to this specific event
17 or --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But with the knowledge you
19 have, what one sees, could this have been caused by a bullet? This is an
20 ultrasimple question I'm putting to you. Could this have been due to a
21 bullet? Because we see a scar. Could it have been caused by a bullet?
22 You said during your career you saw an X number of bodies, so I'm asking
23 you a technical question. Can what we see have been caused by a bullet?
24 If you don't know, say that you don't.
25 A. It's hard to be precise in such a situation simply on the basis
1 of this fact, or rather this video picture that I am looking at. What I
2 mean is I don't know how to put it, one needs to know the circumstances
3 under which something is happening. One needs to have more precise
4 factors on the basis of which to draw conclusions. I could sort of
5 arbitrarily make a judgement.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll continue.
7 [Videotape played]
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Stop the video, please.
11 [Videotape played]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to stop now and
13 we'll continue with the questions after the break. It is 12.30 and we'll
14 resume about 5 to 1.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.01 p.m.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll now resume. Check to see
18 if the transcript is working; it is.
19 Witness, you were shown a video just before we adjourned, and
20 like everyone else in the courtroom, you watched the video. There were
21 traces of wounds on these bodies the size of which was different. Could
22 you explain how it is that the wounds on the bodies were of different
23 sizes, the holes made were different sizes. Is there anything you could
24 say, any explanation you could provide?
25 A. It depends.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It depends on what?
2 A. It depends on the trajectory of the bullet, or rather, it depends
3 on the obstacles encountered by the bullets. A bullet in the course of
4 its trajectory can be deviated, the bullets can be affected -- so the
5 bullets can be affected. As a rule in ballistics, entry wounds have a
6 smaller diameter. It depends on whether the bullet was deformed. If
7 that is the case, the exit wound can be of a bigger size.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You said that you
9 were present when the pathologist examined the bodies. Were the corpses
10 -- when the corpses were examined, were they completely naked?
11 A. Yes, completely.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as you can remember when
13 the bodies were examined, were there still traces of blood?
14 A. I assume that there were. It depended on the position of the
15 body. As the bodies were turned around, blood would appear from certain
16 parts of the bodies.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have said that you had
18 already attended such examinations. When somebody dies a violent death,
19 at the time were autopsies performed or not? As a specialist, a
20 technician, what would you say? Was it almost obligatory to perform
21 autopsies when the cause of death was a violent one, or was this for the
22 judges to decide? As a specialist, what is your position about this
24 A. Well, only a judge can order an autopsy to be performed. That's
25 the case for the current law on criminal procedure and for the former
1 one. This event referred to by the Prosecutor -- well, as far as the
2 event in 1995 is concerned, the event was similar to the one referred to
3 by the Prosecutor. The examination of the victims was identical to the
4 examination of the victims in this case.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But as far as you know, were
6 there any cases in which complete autopsies were performed? Are there
7 any cases that you yourself were familiar with?
8 A. Yes, I'm familiar with many cases, many such cases. But on the
9 whole these cases involved - well, how would I put it -- civilian part of
10 the work, as far as combat is concerned when there was fighting,
11 autopsies were rarely performed. So I'm telling what I know, on the
12 basis of my experience. I know -- I'm familiar with these two events.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Dr. Faruk Turkic, was he
14 someone who was capable of performing an autopsy? Because in forensic
15 medicine it's necessary to have diplomas in medicine and certain
16 knowledge. Was this doctor capable of performing an autopsy, in
17 accordance with the rules of forensic medicine?
18 A. Dr. Faruk Turkic was a pathologist. This means someone who
19 determines the cause of death. As this to whether he had any knowledge
20 in the field of forensic medicine, I don't know. But all I do know is at
21 that time the only doctor who could carry out that work in that area was
22 this person I have referred to. He was the most competent doctor.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When the body is examined, if
24 one assumes that there were gunshot wounds, doesn't one try to find the
25 bullets in the body?
1 A. Yes. This can be done when an autopsy is performed, and as I
2 said an autopsy was not performed at the time. And in the case of
3 similar events, autopsies weren't performed either.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's go back to
5 the document that Defence counsel showed you a while ago. And could you
6 have a look at document number 4, P341, dated the 29th of January. It's
7 the document on the paraffin test. Can you see the first page? On the
8 first page it says that on the 29th of January -- maybe I'll translate
9 this. "Bodies brought from Dusina, from Lasva, were identified and
10 paraffin tests were performed on each body, et cetera.
11 But I see that there was no paraffin test for the body of
12 Stanisic. And in English it says that it was impossible to approach the
13 body. Where was Stanisic's body? Do you have an explanation, because
14 ten bodies are referred to and there are nine paraffin tests, yet there
15 was no test performed on this body. How do you explain this?
16 A. As far as I can remember now, I would say that for technical
17 reasons -- well, in the morgue there are only two tables and the room is
18 about 4 by 5 metres. That's the area where the examinations were carried
19 out. And given the number of bodies, since that's the only morgue and
20 since there were many other bodies of people who had died in other ways,
21 well I assumed that this was the reason.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The paraffin test
23 we were provided with a description under "findings." We were provided
24 with a description of the test. I won't go into the technique -- the
25 technical details, which is very simple if you're familiar with this
1 procedure, but I have a minor question. When you take samples for the
2 chemical reaction of defemalin [phoen], how do you proceed? How do you
3 take samples from the hands to determine whether there's any nitrate,
4 oxide, et cetera? How do you proceed? How do you take samples?
5 A. We used the paraffin gloves to collect samples. The procedure is
6 as follows, I should explain this.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very quickly. How do you
9 A. You take paraffin that dissolves at a certain temperature and has
10 a certain purity. It dissolves and then you put the paraffin on the
11 hands. After it has solidified - after a certain period of time has
12 passed, the time depends on the warmth of the body - you take the
13 paraffin gloves off and then you perform an analysis of those paraffin
14 gloves under microscope.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the case of Stanisic's body
16 it wouldn't have taken long to perform that test. Why wasn't this test
17 done? You say the body was there, but why?
18 A. Well, I can't remember that body now. The body was photographed,
19 but you know if you only have one table and then you move one body to one
20 place and another to another place and the room is only 4 by 5 metres, I
21 assume that as a result the workers who were carrying out the work simply
22 left. This is just an assumption, but that might be the technical
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll go on to
25 another question. Have a look at document 5. We have a description in
1 that document of the bodies, an external description of the bodies.
2 There are no names for these bodies. You have identified the names. You
3 said number 1 was Mr. Stanic [as interpreted], you said 2 was Pero
4 Ljubicic, et cetera. On the 28th of January, they were not identified.
5 On the 29th of January we were identified, as we can see in document 334
6 and in document P341. We have the first and last names and the dates of
7 birth. On the basis of documents and you are a specialist in
8 fingerprints, fingerprints were taken -- fingerprints of their right
9 index fingers were taken and then these fingerprints were then compared
10 to fingerprints that the Zenica police station apparently had. As far as
11 you can remember, is this what actually happened? How were the
12 fingerprints compared?
13 A. Well, how would I put it? Comparisons made on -- in the files
14 that relate to identity cards of all the individuals who lived in the
15 state, in these files you have the fingerprints of these individuals'
16 right index fingers.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the identity cards were
18 where? Where were these victims' identity cards, if they had them?
19 A. I didn't see those documents on any of them. This was something
20 that the inspector from the CSB was involved in, Saric Enes. We were
21 involved in the technical part of the work, photographing, et cetera, in
22 the paraffin test that I have spoken about.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's have a look
24 at document number 5 now which contains descriptions of the bodies.
25 Could you have a look at the description of body number 7. It says that
1 it's a male, 185 centimetres tall, about 30 years of age, et cetera. In
2 line 4 it says: The face is extremely deformed and unrecognisable
3 because of broken bones."
4 Can you see that? Can you see that sentence? And then it
5 says --
6 A. Just a minute. Which document are you referring to?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The document number 5, which
8 provides an external description of the bodies. It's dated the 28th of
9 January. And in this document, which was compiled by the pathologist who
10 was following orders issued by the judge, Mirsad Strika, there are ten
11 bodies that were examined. I would like you to have a look at body
12 number 7, marked 8. Can you see that part? It's on page 3. The
13 description commences as follows: "The body of a male, 185 centimetres
14 tall, et cetera." Have a look at line 4 in this paragraph. I'll read
15 line 4. I'll translate the English into French.
16 It says: "The face is extremely deformed and unrecognisable
17 because of broken bones." And it continues. It says that "the nose is
18 also deformed; the mouth is open."
19 When it says that the face is deformed, how is it that it doesn't
20 say that it's deformed as a result of a gunshot wound? Because if a
21 bullet was in question, how could one explain the fact that the face is
22 extremely deformed? As a technician, what would you say? Is the
23 deformation caused by a bullet or something else? Because in the
24 paragraph that follows it says: "The face is deformed and it's difficult
25 to recognise it because of the broken bones."
1 What would your conclusion be?
2 A. As far as wounds to the head are concerned, it means that a bone
3 was encountered as an obstacle. If a bullet encounters a bone which is
4 an obstacle, then this causes significant deformations. The exit wounds
5 are frequently very ugly. So if there were two wounds inflicted to the
6 head, then very frequently you have such cases. At this moment I can't
7 really be precise, but this is a situation that occurred frequently.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But given what you
9 have said as far as the technical matters are concerned, how is it that
10 the pathologist did not indicate, did not mention, that there was a
11 bullet in the head? Because according to what you said, these
12 deformations and these multiple fractures can only be the result of the
13 bullet or of several bullets. How is it that this description does not
14 mention the fact that there was a bullet? How would you explain this?
15 Can you provide an explanation?
16 A. Well, look -- how would I explain that, What would I say? If an
17 automatic firearm was used, a fast weapon, then it can even sever part of
18 the body. For example, if it can fire a lot of bullets in a minute, then
19 it can even sever part of the body, and this would occur. So there would
20 no longer be an entry point or an exit point; all you could see would be
21 a deformation. That is really the case with the head, because a bullet
22 is immediately encountered. As far as soft tissue is concerned, the
23 situation is a little different after all.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But wouldn't it
25 have been possible to perform an autopsy to determine the trajectory of
1 the bullet?
2 A. Well, you see, regarding the trajectory of the bullet, we need to
3 have two fixed points. No autopsy was done in this case. Whether there
4 were two fixed points or not, I am unable to say now.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see. You can't make any
6 conclusions. Very well.
7 JUDGE SWART: Good morning, Witness. I have a few questions for
8 you. The first one is the following. You mentioned the names of the
9 judges at the investigation concerning the bodies we talked about. There
10 was also a prosecutor present. Do you also remember his name or don't
12 A. I don't remember the name. I know he doesn't have the most
13 important role in those activities, so I don't remember the specific
15 JUDGE SWART: I have two other questions for you. One relates to
16 what you've said one or two minutes ago, talking about wounds caused by
17 gunshots. If you read the report that is number 5 in your set of
18 documents, you see that the doctor very often says that there is a wound
19 the size of a -- the palm of a man's hand or the palm of a child's hand.
20 And it strikes me that in a number of situations in which he makes this
21 remark, he also said that it is an exit wound.
22 Is there a relationship between exit wounds and the size of
23 wounds, as you suggested a minute ago? You said exit wounds caused
24 terrible exit shots, exit -- an exiting bullet caused terrible wounds.
25 A. I said that depending on the obstacles that the bullet comes
1 across, the round, what obstacle it comes against, it may depart from its
2 trajectory. And then it carries with it the material it comes across.
3 For instance, if it hits against bone, hard bone, the bone is fragile,
4 brittle, and a kind of conical crater is formed. And that is why the
5 exit wounds are ugly when the round encounters a hard obstacle.
6 JUDGE SWART: I think I understand what you are saying. When the
7 doctor writes about wounds the size of the palm of a hand or a child's
8 hand, he -- well, if he asks you -- if the doctor writes such things in
9 his report, what would you see, as a layman, if you read there is a wound
10 the size of a hand, the palm of a hand? What would you expect to see as
11 a layman? Is there a hole or something else?
12 A. The exit wound, as I explained a moment ago. The entry wound can
13 be smaller and the exit wound larger, especially when the round
14 encounters these obstacles. Not along the whole channel so as to make a
15 hole. In my view, a hole is something that is hollow throughout.
16 JUDGE SWART: But my question was: If the doctor -- the doctor
17 who made this report writes about a wound as large as the size of the
18 palm of a man, the palm of a child's hand, would that correspond with
19 what you are telling? Would -- may I expect as a reader to be confronted
20 with a hole in that case? I'm just asking: What does he mean when he
21 says that?
22 A. I think that he was trying to say entry and exit wound in a way,
23 because he knows that.
24 JUDGE SWART: Okay. He very often mentioned in this respect exit
25 wounds but doesn't do it always. So is the question that he had in mind
2 Two other questions I still have. One relates to a discussion
3 between the Prosecutor and you. The Prosecutor said when somebody is
4 shot from different angles, can this be a war situation and you said,
5 yes, this can very well be caused in a war situation. Now, if you read
6 the report of the doctor you see that in the case of three bodies, body
7 1, body 3, and body 10 in this list, there were only wounds -- entries of
8 bullets at the back. So these people have died by bullets that only came
9 from the back side.
10 My question to you would be: Is that something that is quite
11 normal in war situations, in a fight? Or is that exclusively a
12 phenomenon that is not related to a fight?
13 A. All kinds of things happen. One cannot make any conclusions
14 solely based on that particular fact. The configuration of the land is
15 very important. It could even be decisive when making conclusions.
16 JUDGE SWART: For instance, when they were in the valley and have
17 been shot from the hilltop or so, that could be a situation in which you
18 could kill a man in a fight by hitting him from the back -- in the back.
19 Is that the kind of situation you were thinking of?
20 A. I was thinking of various situations on the basis of which one
21 draws conclusions. But in wartime there are also kinds of situations.
22 This is for me nothing unusual, and it doesn't lead me to doubt or
23 suspect that this was something out of the ordinary.
24 JUDGE SWART: Thank you.
25 And my last question to you is the following. The Presiding
1 Judge read you a part of the description of body number 7. And he quoted
2 the part of the report which makes mention of wounds on the head of that
3 person. And you said, yes, well, if a body -- if a bullet encounters
4 resistance and deviates from its normal trajectory, but if it encounters
5 resistance it may cause all kinds of terrible wounds, and I understand
6 that. But please note at the end of the description of the doctor in
7 this case, in this case of body number 7, that he only talks about an
8 entry at the right collar bone in this body and the exit at the back. So
9 I don't see how this bullet could have reached the head, so to speak. He
10 doesn't mention other bullets. Do you have an explanation? Can you help
11 me there?
12 A. I could make a comparison as someone who deals with forensics
13 and who is working on ballistics. When a round hits glass very often
14 nothing is left. So one doesn't know where it entered or where it exited
15 when the glass is on the ground.
16 JUDGE SWART: Thank you. I also have one question for the
17 Defence because I don't remember having heard this before. But could the
18 Defence tell us where this document comes from. Is it from the military
19 court or is it from another archive? Maybe I have missed it.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that this is
21 a document that the Defence received during the investigations in the
22 cantonal court in Zenica and the cantonal prosecutor's office in Zenica.
23 Some of these documents and others like them were received from the
24 prosecutor's office. And this particular one that I showed to the
25 witness, I'm not sure from which of these three sources it came. But it
1 is to be found in the court register and among the documents of the
3 JUDGE SWART: Thank you.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Still talking about this
5 document, I would like to ask the Defence, the last page of the document
6 where we see the conclusion, just before the conclusion there's a line.
7 Have you seen the original or is this a copy of the original?
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Where did you say, Mr. President,
9 that the line was?
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Page 6 in the B/C/S document.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] To be quite frank, Mr. President,
12 this is a copy of the document. As our investigators examined the
13 documents in the courts, I personally cannot testify about the original
14 document because we never received originals.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
16 Are there any additional questions? We have a few minutes left. Does
17 the Prosecution have any questions emanating from the Judges' questions?
18 And then I'll give the floor to the Defence counsel.
19 MR. WAESPI: Okay, Mr. President, yes, I do have one question and
20 that relates to an answer you gave in relation to the Presiding Judge's
21 question about this -- I call it now cut or whatever, wound we saw on the
23 Further cross-examination by Mr. Waespi:
24 Q. You said that, and I quote you, you "needed more precise factors
25 on the basis of which to draw conclusions." And in an answer to Judge
1 Swart's question you also said that the configuration of land would be
2 important to make determinations.
3 Can you elaborate a little bit more about this cut. What
4 factors -- how would you have determined what the circumstances of that
5 wound was? You as an expert in that field, how -- if you had free hands,
6 how would you have gone about to determine the circumstances of this
7 infliction of that wound?
8 A. You mean this specific wound on the neck of one of the victims or
10 Q. Yes, specifically.
11 A. If you want my opinion, I didn't provide it previously regarding
12 neck injuries. It is difficult on the basis of a photograph or a
13 videotape that was shown to me on the monitor. As a specialist, when I
14 look at this photograph it reminds me of a surface injury. Had it been
15 deeper there would have been a very visible opening. The width of the
16 scar would have been greater, though I'm not a forensic medical expert,
17 but as a criminal technician that would be my opinion for that particular
19 Q. And if you were asked to determine what the cause of this wound
20 was, how would you have followed up? What would you have done if you
21 were in charge of that investigation?
22 A. This is something specific, and then I would probably know what
23 to do. We are talking about the human body or something else, but now as
24 we just have a photograph, or rather, a video still, we can just comment
25 on them with a certain degree of probability. So that means --
1 Q. But would you have interviewed witnesses, tried to find witnesses
2 who were present when the infliction of the wound would have happened.
3 Would you have tried to do that?
4 A. A forensic medical expert or me as a ballistic expert should not
5 engage in any kind of interviewing in order to make our decisions.
6 Decisions are made on the basis of concrete facts and traces. Traces
7 never lie. People may lie, but traces never lie.
8 Q. If you yourself put into the shoes of an investigative judge in
9 order to find out what the reasons are for this wound, would you
10 interview witnesses as an example?
11 A. You mean as head of the investigating team, head of the entire
12 investigations or as a technical person who did the technical part of the
13 work? It depends on my role.
14 Q. Yes, the former one, the head of the investigation.
15 A. Probably I would, because part of the investigations was
16 conducted in that way, too.
17 Q. Thank you, Witness.
18 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I have a comment to make about this
19 "report" you just discussed about. We received that for the first time
20 two days ago or three days ago from the Defence. And you see as the
21 B/C/S does not call them any, as we call them, ERN numbers. But in
22 preparation for this witness I checked our files again and as it
23 happens - and I just gave the originals of our files to the
24 Defence - this expert report followed the photo identification report.
25 And I understand we seized it somewhere some time ago. And the reason --
1 yes, I believe it was the result of an RFA, request for assistance. And
2 the reason we didn't pick it up is because it's wrongly dated. It's a
3 very shallow explanation, but if you look at the head it says "1992."
4 And perhaps the system or whoever was dealing with it didn't pick it up
5 as part of this investigation. It also doesn't mention Dusina, it just
6 says in the title "Lasva, near Zenica."
7 So we have it. It was ERN'd and I gave the original -- it's also
8 a copy, but we have the original copy is with the Defence right now. She
9 has the file with her. And if you want to have a look at our original,
10 then you are very welcome to it. That's the explanation I can give you,
11 Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have the original there?
13 MR. WAESPI: Yes, it's with Defence counsel.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perhaps we can have a look at
15 it straightaway.
16 MR. WAESPI: And it was a copy of what we were provided. You'll
17 see it's not originally signed.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, these are photocopies.
19 These are photocopies.
20 MR. WAESPI: Yes. That is the case.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 Does the Defence have any questions?
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] First of all, I have a response
24 to make. Clearly the source from which we obtained the document is
25 identical with the source explained by my learned colleague from the
1 Prosecution. And, Your Honour, you will be able to see that on page 6 of
2 this document the same straight line appears. So certainly it exists on
3 the original document as well.
4 Further examination by Ms. Residovic:
5 Q. I would like to ask you some questions from the Judges'
6 questions. You were shown a video recording. I would like to ask you.
7 When you took photographs of the bodies in the morgue of the Zenica
8 hospital, in addition did you put any markings next to the bodies? And
9 if so, are those markings visible on your photographs?
10 A. Yes, we did. The markings we placed by the bodies, the markings
11 1, 2, 3, and 4. And in the document, in Exhibit Number 334, P334, the
12 names are under those numbers, 1, 2, 3. But 3/93 has been added there.
13 Q. Mr. Husejnagic, in response to a question you said that when you
14 were there in the morgue you didn't have a video camera nor did anyone
15 use a video to film the scene. And is that your response to the video
16 shown to you by the Chamber?
17 A. Yes. I didn't see anyone using a video camera to film the scene,
18 but I think it was only in 1997 that the MUP, the Ministry of the
19 Interior, obtained a video camera.
20 Q. If someone had filmed the scene with a video camera while you
21 were there and you were taking photographs of the corpses and there was a
22 doctor who was there who described the bodies, if someone had filmed the
23 scene would the video have picked up the numbers that you had placed by
24 the bodies?
25 A. Yes, of course. I think it would have been impossible to film
1 the bodies without capturing the markings.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since in addition
3 to this document which we showed to the witness, we had photocopies of
4 photographs which weren't clear, the copies were very bad, could our
5 colleagues from the Prosecution show us the best -- the Prosecution
6 showed us the best version of these documents. Could we now show the
7 witness these photographs, these copies, to determine whether these are
8 in fact the photographs that the witness took.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 Mr. Usher, could you show this file to the Defence so they can
11 take the photographs from it.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 You can show them to the witness. You could ask him to put them
14 on the ELMO so we can all see them. Could you put the first sheet on the
15 ELMO, please, because the witness previously said that in addition to the
16 photographs he provided to the court there is a front page with his
17 signature. Perhaps the witness could have a look at the front page and
18 tell us whether the bottom of the page we can see his name and his
19 signature, too.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the very bottom you can't see
21 everything but I think it's sufficient. You can see the first and last
22 name and my colleague Hadzic Redzo is above with his signature.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Can you show us all the photographs one after another, and can
25 you point to the markings you placed by the bodies when you photographed
1 them. And these are the markings referred to the doctor later on.
2 A. Number 1 through 93. In the document I mentioned early on, P334.
3 Q. Thank you. Let's continue.
4 A. Here we have number 2, number 3, number 4. This number is part
5 of the equipment of the forensic -- that the forensic team has. It's
6 used to indicate traces, et cetera.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 A. You can -- this is number 4. Here it's not very visible, but
9 number 5 should have been here.
10 Q. Very well.
11 A. I think, if you have a good look, you can see the outline of
12 number 5.
13 Q. Very well. Do continue.
14 A. 6, 7, 8, 9, and number 10.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 You told the Presiding Judge about the method of identification
17 when you took the fingerprints of the right index finger and you provided
18 certain explanations. You said you didn't see these individuals'
19 identity cards. But could you please tell us, where are the files of all
20 the fingerprints of the right index fingers of all those who have
21 identity cards in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
22 A. Well, in the places where identity cards were issued, the police
23 administrations have certain form -- certain forms for identity cards.
24 And they have the fingerprints of the right index finger. And as a rule,
25 if the right index finger is damaged, then you take a fingerprint from
1 the left one. As a rule when you proceed with identifications, when you
2 don't know who the person is, you take a fingerprint of both the right
3 and left index finger.
4 Q. Do you remember when your colleague who identified the body under
5 number 8 made such a comparison, compared the data with the data that the
6 police administration in Zenica had?
7 A. Well, in the files of identity cards you have the fingerprint of
8 the -- from the right index finger. And in the course of the
9 investigations, we took fingerprints from the right index finger of body
10 number 8.
11 Q. The Chamber also asked you a number of questions about the fact
12 that in the case of some wounds the doctor didn't refer to the entry and
13 exit wounds, and you said that depending on the trajectory of a bullet, a
14 bullet can sever part of the body. And in such cases, there's no exit or
15 entry wound.
16 Could you please tell us, if a body has multiple wounds, is it
17 possible that in the case of parts of the body being severed there is no
18 entry or exit wound, whereas in the cases of other wounds inflicted on
19 other parts of the body it's possible to detect an entry and exit wound?
20 Did you come across any such cases?
21 A. Yes, on a number of occasions. I've already explained this. As
22 I've said, the obstacles encountered by the bullet is the main factor.
23 Q. Let's go back to the photos. You said that the original
24 photographs are in the possession of the person you forwarded them to.
25 But does the CSB keep in its archives some of the basic material on the
1 basis of which it might be possible to establish that these are in fact
2 the photographs that you took?
3 A. In accordance with the instructions and rules of the MUP, the
4 Ministry of the Interior, the forensic department must keep negatives
5 that were made when carrying out investigations. They must keep these
6 negatives in their archives.
7 Q. And my last question, although there might be an objection, but
8 you said that you knew Mr. Turkic and he was the most professional man,
9 most competent man in the hospital at the time. In the course of the
10 examination -- in the course of the investigation -- in the course of the
11 examination of the body, Dr. Turkic -- if Dr. Turkic had observed a
12 significant kind of wound, would Dr. Turkic have referred to that wound,
13 to such a wound, in his findings? What is your opinion?
14 A. Well, I wouldn't place myself in such a situation for a number of
16 Q. Very well.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The witness can't answer the
18 question. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You already mentioned the
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it's not been correctly
22 interpreted. The doctor wouldn't have placed himself in such a
23 situation - that's what I wanted to say - in the course of such
24 investigations. Well, I think it would have been strange if the doctor
25 tried to misrepresent something or falsify something.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecution?
2 MR. WAESPI: Well, in fact, the objection was obvious because it
3 calls for speculation of what is in the mind of someone else. Also, I'm
4 not sure whether the witness said before he was the most professional
5 doctor. I thought he was the only doctor in the Zenica morgue.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, in fact the witness said
7 that he was the only doctor in the area.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no other questions. Thank
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And the other
11 Defence team?
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, with your leave if
13 the Prosecution allows us we will make better copies of these
14 photographs, but we would wish to tender these documents into evidence.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The other Defence team?
16 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] We have no further questions,
17 Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Defence has two documents
19 they would like to have admitted into evidence: The description of the
20 bodies under number 5, and there are the photographs as well. So we need
21 two exhibit numbers.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As we don't have the
24 photocopies, we'll wait until tomorrow.
25 Does the Prosecution have any objections to having these two
1 documents admitted into evidence?
2 MR. WAESPI: No, not at all, Mr. President. But just if we could
3 make the copy, because these are the originals and it's a chain of
4 custody issue. So I'll give you the best copy I could do.
5 Second, if we could have an official translation of this external
6 description report because there are a couple of errors. For instance,
7 just one example, at the end of the first page it starts in the English
8 translation: "There is an exit wound on the right cheek." And in B/C/S
9 it says: "There is an entry wound."
10 So if just a good translation -- I'm sure it's a good one, but if
11 it could be checked again. We have an official CLSS translation of this
12 important document. Other than that, we don't have any objections.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Defence counsel.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I know that the interpreters, the
15 translators, in this Tribunal have a very difficult job to do and they
16 work under pressure. Sometimes I notice errors such as the ones referred
17 to by my colleague. This is an official Tribunal translation, but we
18 could make a request to have this translation reviewed again in order to
19 eliminate any errors.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will mark these
21 documents for identification and then we will provide definitive numbers
22 once we have the photocopies and the official translations. Could we
23 have a number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] DH1638 is the report number.
25 DH1638/E will be the English version. As far as the photographs are
1 concerned, the number will be DH1639.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have marked these documents
3 for identification. Once we have the photographs, we'll provide them
4 with definitive numbers. And once we have the official translations, we
5 will provide definitive numbers, too, but we will bear these documents in
7 Witness, this completes your testimony. Thank you for coming to
8 The Hague. You have answered all the questions put to you by both
9 parties and the Judges. We wish you a good trip home and all the best in
10 your current career as head of the forensic department. Thank you.
11 And if there are no other issues to be raised, I will see
12 everyone at the hearing tomorrow at 9.00. Thank you.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.01 p.m.,
14 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 2nd day of
15 December, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.