1 Tuesday, 23 July 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Good morning, Mr. Harvey.
8 MR. HARVEY: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours. May I
9 introduce Mr. Joash Fang who's been with our team for the last two
10 months. He's a graduate of political sciences from the university of
11 Vancouver, Canada. Thank you.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Good morning,
15 Excellencies. Good morning, everybody.
16 WITNESS: DUSAN DUNJIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Professor.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. [Microphone not activated].
22 Yesterday we discussed the significance of those artefacts which
23 could be of assistance had they not been destroyed. Were you in the
24 courtroom when Christopher Lawrence testified?
25 A. Yes, I was.
1 Q. You will remember that on pages 22468 I asked you about
2 blindfolds and on that same page Dr. Lawrence answered that many were
3 very similar, that they were made of high quality and expensive fabric,
4 that very few had knots, whereas the others were made of one piece of
5 fabric. Do you remember that?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. What does this say to you? Would it be useful if we were able to
8 see those blindfolds, those alleged blindfolds here in the courtroom?
9 What could we conclude on the basis of seeing them?
10 A. From the forensic aspect, it could be considered from two
11 different points of view. Those blindfolds may be just simple pieces of
12 cloth that are used to bandage the forehead or the headbands that are
13 tied around the forehead by soldiers who belonged to a military group or
14 who want to show affiliation to a religion. So that may mean that tying
15 a band around one's head doesn't mean that that person is blindfolded,
16 i.e., that those were pieces of cloth that were made to serve as
17 blindfolds. In that sense, I would like to be able to see how things
18 were found in situ and how they were described in autopsy reports, and
19 then I would be able to tell you more precisely how things were used,
20 when they were used, if they were used.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
23 MR. MITCHELL: Good morning, Mr. President. Just a quick
24 clarification. At transcript 22468, Dr. Lawrence did say the blindfolds
25 were all quite similar. He didn't say anything about them being high
1 quality or expensive fabric, so I just thought I'd make that clear for
2 the transcript.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, on page 22474 and 22475,
5 which is a few pages further, Mr. Mitchell was in the courtroom, and you
6 will remember that the entire evidence showed, 7273, for example, 22472
7 and 22473, for example. However, Professor Dunjic has his diary. He
8 made notes of everybody's words when he was in the courtroom --
9 JUDGE KWON: But, Mr. Karadzic, you made reference only to a
10 specific page, 22468. Shall we continue?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, on 22472 there is a reference
12 to some knots, which means that the blindfolds were not made of a single
13 piece of fabric, whereas the rest of them were made of a single piece of
14 fabric. And then on 22474 and 22475 it says that they were made of a
15 glossy fabric, that some were multi-coloured, that some had patterns, and
16 so on and so forth.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Professor, you intimated that one cannot draw a conclusion as to
19 whether somebody was killed in fighting and then subsequently buried or
20 buried earlier or whether the body was picked up from the surface. I'm
21 going to tell you what Witness 045 stated. Witness 045 said, let me try
22 and find the page, this is 22674, yes. And I'm going to read in English.
23 The question was this:
24 [In English] "And how was that, were there any casualties?
25 "A. Many casualties. I just mentioned that only in the night of
1 the 12th to the 13th I saw 40 to 50 people who were seriously wounded who
2 were brought to that hill. I don't know what happened to those people
3 later. I didn't hear about that from anyone, and those people were never
4 seen again.
5 "Q. Were they just wounded? Nobody was killed?
6 "A. There were so many killed that nobody could carry them out
7 from the creek, no one could have saved these people. Definitely a large
8 number were killed."
9 [Interpretation] And then the following question:
10 [In English] "Thank you. Is it correct that nevertheless you
11 were aware that a part of 281st Brigade numbering about 1.000 fighters
12 and 500 civilians" --
13 "A. Well, it's a bit" -- no.
14 "Q. Did you bury the people who had -- killed in fighting in
15 these -- Potoci?
16 "A. Well, it's a bit of a silly question, if I may say that.
17 How could we have time to bury anyone when you don't even know what will
18 happen to you in the next minute? We didn't even have time to look at
20 "Q. Who buried these people?
21 "A. Nobody ever did unless they were found later or the Serbs
22 gathered them and put them in a mass graves. All the rest are probably
23 still there in those woods."
24 [Interpretation] How does this tally with your findings and your
25 conclusions based on documents as well as the description of the
1 biological material?
2 A. I'm not an expert who is in a position to judge the credibility
3 of evidence. It's up to the Court and the Prosecutor. However, as a
4 forensic expert, based on this statement I can single out some elements,
5 one of them is that there was a lot of casualties, a lot of wounded and
6 killed who were not buried. That fact alone, if it indeed is a fact,
7 tallies with what I said earlier and that is that some bodies were
8 subsequently brought to certain locations to the nearest places where
9 they could be buried and that they were already in the stage of
10 putrification. This actually proves what I highlighted in the
11 Prosecutor's witness Dusan Janc. He actually said the same thing, that
12 people were buried subsequently, that the bodies were subsequently
13 brought, and that they were already putrefied. I can regard the evidence
14 of the witness that you have just read out only through that aspect, and
15 obviously in the written part that I submitted to you I quoted some other
16 witnesses who were not protected whose testimonies I received. I cited
17 their findings in the segment which shows how the survivors had been
18 wounded. That was important to me. I wanted to see whether the wounds
19 that were recorded in the autopsy reports correspond somewhat to the
20 stories that the witnesses told us, the survivors who came here to
22 Q. Thank you. The same witness confirmed that at least five, if not
23 six, people were killed next to him. They were on the lists of the ICMP
24 as executed and their bodies were found in various graves. If we are
25 going to read their names, I would like to do it in private session, but
1 I don't think we should read the names. Number 1.700, 4.647, 3.489,
2 number 11200 or 112199, 3072, these are the people who were killed next
3 to him and their bodies were found in various mass graves. How do you
4 interpret that?
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
6 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I don't know what those numbers are
7 Dr. Karadzic just read out, and I'd also like a cite for the confirmation
8 that at least five or six people were killed next to him and that these
9 are on the lists of the ICMP as executed.
10 JUDGE KWON: Shall we -- we don't need to go into private
11 session, do we?
12 MR. MITCHELL: No, Mr. President.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think so, no. I don't
14 think we have to go to private session. However, this is somewhat later
15 than the first reference I gave you for Witness 045. I did not make a
16 note, so if you will bear with me. This can be found, the names can be
17 found in 65 ter 3246. I believe that the document has been admitted on
18 page 3, 3246 on page 3, and in his testimony it was confirmed that the
19 names were based on the names of the parents, but I have to find that
20 page. After the break I will be able to give you the exact transcript
21 page. The names are there and in the transcript he mentioned the names
22 of the parents, or rather, the fathers and we established that we're
23 talking about the same people.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, was that a question?
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. No, this was a response to Mr. Mitchell's remark.
2 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, the names are at transcript 22677
3 and the next page, so there's no need to look for that cite.
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Professor, your report is very clear and extensive so I will not
9 go through all the details. I would like to ask you this.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D9311 in
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Could you please tell us what conclusion would you draw from the
14 fact that the bodies of people who were killed in 1992, 1994, and 1995
15 were exhumed from just one mass grave?
16 A. What we can see now in this document is very remarkable. It is
17 striking and significant because it confirms what Dusan Janc wrote in his
18 corrigendum about subsequent burials, about bodies that were brought from
19 different parts, about digging secondary graves, which in my mind are
20 mostly primary mass graves and they are secondary for only some body
21 parts. The most important thing here is that bodies were found in
22 various locations and on the right-hand side you can see exactly what
23 locations those are. This is the list of mass graves, and in the middle
24 there is the date of birth, the name of the person, their father's name,
25 and the date of death pursuant to Brunborg, and the date of birth and
1 date of death according to lists of BiH army. In my mind this was a
2 striking piece of information, i.e., that for one and the same person it
3 may be said that he was killed on the 12th of July, 1995, and that same
4 person, for example, Avdo Ademovic, whose father's name was Taib, was
5 killed on the 1st of August, 1993.
6 As a matter of fact, when I was working on those reports I had
7 seen some tables compiled by the ICMP and some other documents and I
8 could see that those lists contained the names of people who died in 1993
9 or in 1994. During the Popovic et al. trial it was -- this list was
10 disclosed and actually Geoffrey Nice, who was the Prosecutor in the
11 Milosevic case, asked from the BiH authorities to submit the list of the
12 names of the people who were killed before July 1995, before the fall of
13 Srebrenica. They received a long list containing the names of over
14 100 people. This is just one part of that list and that list contains
15 the names of the people who were army members and who had been killed
17 It is a well-known fact that there were clashes around Srebrenica
18 even before July 1995. I was asked where the bodies of those people are,
19 the bodies of the people who were killed before July 1995. I said I
20 don't know, and then they said they were found in those mass graves. And
21 then I say, "Yes, they were found in the mass graves, they were
22 identified; however, what I can confirm is the fact that those mass
23 graves contained the bodies of the people in various stages of
24 putrefaction." Because of that I wrote on several occasions and I said
25 on several occasions that the procedure to describe the degradation
1 changes on the bodies that were exhumed is a very significant process
2 because it indirectly confirms the time of death, or rather, the time of
3 burial. And when we were talking about primary and secondary graves,
4 that was not just a theoretical consideration, it was very important
5 because some bodies were completely disjointed which points to a high
6 degree of putrification.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page,
8 please --
9 JUDGE KWON: Before we go further.
10 Professor, do you know who compiled or produced this document?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't.
12 It was presented to me as it is now.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But there is an ERN number from the
14 EDS collection.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you'll allow me to emphasise one
16 point that I neglected to mention, you have here the date of death by
17 Brunborg and the date of death according to the BiH army list. Now, the
18 date of death indicates the day when a person died. The date of death
19 can be established in various ways. In addition to forensic methods,
20 which are the most important methods, the date can also be established
21 based on witness statements, documents that can be retrieved, and other
22 sort of evidence. This is what I discussed. Now, what I have been doing
23 so far is that a number of cases of individuals exhumed from these mass
24 graves led me to suspect that different times of death or dates of death
25 were recorded because you cannot find in one single mass grave an
1 individual who is -- whose body is fully skeletonised and another body
2 which is only saponified. So this is not consistent with what would
3 normally be found in a mass grave as Richard Wright claimed.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Thank you. Were you able to see any BH army lists with their
6 information as to the times of death?
7 A. Yes. I received from the Defence team for Mr. Vujadin Popovic
8 the entire file of lists with various names and places where these
9 individuals were killed, including the membership of their units at the
10 time and places of death. This is something that the Defence received
11 from the Prosecution.
12 Q. Thank you. Are these names consistent with the names that you
13 saw on the lists provided by the BH army?
14 A. Yes, yes. Let me tell you that I did this at my own initiative
15 and I tried to match them as far as I could.
16 Q. Look at number 128, handwritten, Avdic, Cancari Road 11, date of
17 death 1992. In that same grave, bodies were recovered of individuals who
18 were killed at a later date. In fact, there is almost not a single mass
19 grave that did not contain bodies which died prior to July 1995. What is
20 your conclusion on the basis of that?
21 A. The only conclusion that I can give as a forensic expert is that
22 the bodies which --
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, if you are dealing with what you think
24 is important evidence, do not, please, lead the witness.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am seeking an explanation from
1 the Professor for the fact that almost all the graves contained bodies
2 with a time of death from different periods.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. In fact, does this list show that, does this list show that there
5 are in mass graves --
6 JUDGE KWON: That's leading very much.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Inadvertently. Believe me when I
8 say that it's not deliberate. I simply don't know how to formulate it.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. What does this list indicate with regard to the place of death
11 and time of interment?
12 A. I understand what the point is about. The list containing times
13 of death indicates that some of these bodies, if they were interred in
14 these graves in 1995 or shortly before the events of July 1995, would
15 have had to have been in an advanced stage of decomposition,
16 putrefaction, and skeletonisation, that's under number 1.
17 Now, two, the fact that there are many cases --
18 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Please help us, the Judges,
19 understand this chart first. By way of example you referred to Avdic,
20 handwritten number 1 to 8 is written to the right of the name. Could you
21 read through the columns and what they signify. Avdic, Hamdija probably
22 first name, correct, Professor? Do you see the chart?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do see it. Hamdija, father's
24 name Ramiz, 128, born on 16 July 1971.
25 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
1 Yes, please continue. If you touch the screen -- yes, but we
2 would like to see the whole row.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have it with me.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So I'll try to read from here. So
6 Avdic, first name Hamdija, father's name Ramiz, born on the 16th of July,
7 1971. Date of death, 18 July 1995 --
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. According to?
10 A. That's according to Brunborg. Now, the BH army list, date of
11 birth 16 July 1971, so it's the same, but the date of death registered is
12 15 July 1992.
13 This body was recovered in the mass grave Cancari Road 11 and
14 this is the ID protocol. The recovery of bodies in different locations,
15 having in mind the two dates of death, one according to Brunborg and the
16 other according to the BH army list, clearly indicates that the bodies
17 retrieved here are killed in different places and the bodies were buried
18 in different places, i.e., in the location where they were found, which
19 as a result confirms the thesis that they were killed --
20 JUDGE KWON: Date of birth, left -- to the left of Brunborg, date
21 of death. On what document -- basis was it based upon?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really don't know.
23 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were individuals identified
25 under these names. I don't know who identified them and in what way.
1 Was this information that was provided to the ICMP, first name, last
2 name, father's name, and date of birth, and that was how these persons
3 were being sought, and after that DNA tests were done and identification
4 followed. This is the procedure followed by the ICMP when
5 identifications were made as far as I know. Quite a different matter is
6 how the BH army --
7 JUDGE KWON: Just a second --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- arrived at the information
9 contained on the list. I really don't know that.
10 JUDGE KWON: If you could be brief in answering the question.
11 Could you read out the title? We don't have the translation so that we
12 can understand the document. Could you read out the first line.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first line, I'm sorry?
14 JUDGE KWON: "Primeri identif ..."
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. "Examples of identified
16 individuals from the Prosecution list and database of the BH army (for
17 the cases of soldiers killed or gone missing before July 1995 only)."
18 JUDGE KWON: Professor, you said you didn't know about the
19 provenance of this document. Did you yourself confirm that the data
20 cited in this document are consistent with the raw material?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I tried to locate some of these
22 cases in the autopsy reports and I wanted to establish on the basis of
23 autopsy reports what I was able to establish, that's to say the degree of
24 putrefaction and to then analyse in that context the times of death,
25 whether the information provided by Brunborg or that information provided
1 by the BH army would be closer to the state of affairs. I established
2 that the putrefaction was so marked and prominent that as a forensic
3 expert --
4 JUDGE KWON: Professor, just --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- I would be inclined to go with
6 the date of death as provided by the BH army list --
7 JUDGE KWON: My question was whether, for example, the date of
8 birth and the date of death as cited here were consistent with the ABiH
9 material, whether you checked the data yourself? So the answer seems to
10 be no?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't double-check the date
12 of birth or date of death. I was rather comparing the two dates of
14 JUDGE KWON: Given that, as indicated by Mr. Karadzic, this
15 document bears the 65 -- the ERN number, whether, Mr. Mitchell, you can
16 assist us as to the provenance of this document.
17 MR. MITCHELL: I can, Mr. President. This was annex 3 to the
18 Defence expert report in the Popovic case from Svetlana Radovanovic, who
19 was a demographer called by the Defence teams, which leads me to another
20 point, Mr. President. I think this list is best addressed with someone
21 with expertise in demography, which is clearly not Professor Dunjic's
22 expertise. I'm not sure -- I will double-check. I'm not sure if it was
23 addressed specifically with Dr. Tabeau or with Dr. Brunborg in this case
24 already, but I'll double-check that.
25 JUDGE KWON: Do we have this ABiH material? Could you read out
1 the columns, Mr. Dunjic, Dr. Dunjic, "spisak armije BiH," could you read
2 that out so we could hear the interpretation?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will read out the lists --
4 JUDGE KWON: No, no, no, the title, title of that column.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "BiH army list."
6 JUDGE KWON: Okay. Just that --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And beneath that --
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Thank you. We heard. We know that.
9 Mr. Mitchell, do we have that material, BiH army list, in
10 evidence in our case?
11 MR. MITCHELL: I'm not sure if it's in evidence in this case,
12 Mr. President. I know we do have it and I know that the Prosecution
13 demographers have specifically analysed that data against the missing
14 list. I will check for you, though, whether it is in evidence.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
16 Back to you, Mr. Karadzic. What is important to check the
17 veracity of this document instead of jumping into the conclusion. Please
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we have the next
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. And here let's look at this, the time of death at Cancari Road 11
23 was July 1992, and I mean Avdic that we were looking at.
24 A. Yes, Cancari Road 11. Yes?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I have the next page.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Can you look at this entry concerning Cancari Road 11.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. That's not the next
4 page or -- one more page, please. I apologise.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. What is the time of death according to Brunborg and what is the
7 date of death according to the BH army in this particular instance?
8 A. Avdic Hamdija, Ramiz, according to Brunborg is 18 July --
9 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
10 Who are we talking about now, Mr. Karadzic?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We're talking about the deaths of
12 two bodies buried at Cancari Road. According to Brunborg, one date was
13 18 July 1995 for one body and for the other 13 July 1995, and according
14 to the BH army it was 1992 and 1994 respectively.
15 JUDGE KWON: We are looking at page 3 now, Mr. Karadzic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, and the first one is the case
17 that we were reading about previously.
18 JUDGE KWON: I see two entries on this page related to
19 Cancari Road 11. One is Muminovic and the other is Ramic.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I meant Muminovic, the one at the
21 top, the fifth or sixth from the top.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that was my point. But Professor read out the
23 Avdic entry on page 1.
24 Please continue. What is your question, Mr. Karadzic?
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Could you please tell us how -- if you just stick to Brunborg,
2 how were the bodies found that died on the -- of the person that died on
3 the 18th and of the person that died on the 13th of July, 1995, allegedly
4 in Cancari Road 11? This is a difference of five or six days. Did you
5 find data that the burials lasted that long?
6 A. Just one second, please. Allow me to look at the list.
7 Muminovic, according to Brunborg, 13th of July, 1995, 13th of July, 1995,
8 Cancari Road number 11, and then Cancari Road for Admir Ramic -- ah, yes,
9 all right. Avdic, it's the 11th of July -- it's the 18th of July, 1995.
10 So if I understood the question how is it possible that the two bodies
11 were buried in a period of five days, there's a difference of five days.
12 Q. Well, it's like this, Professor. It was heard here in the
13 courtroom that there were no executions before the 14th. There was a
14 person who died on the 13th was found on Cancari Road 11 and a person who
15 was allegedly killed on the 18th was also found in the same grave. Do
16 you ever an explanation for this?
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
18 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
19 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, that's a misrepresentation of the
20 evidence. There's been plenty of evidence that there were executions
21 before the 14th.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, none of those -- the evidence
23 did not hold, even Janc said so himself. But let's look at something
24 else and then we'll see later what the B&H army says.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Hamdija Avdic, according to Brunborg, died on the 18th of July --
2 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Are you going back to the first
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I'm comparing it. The
5 first page and the next one. Avdic killed on the 18th of July was found
6 in the Cancari Road 11 grave. 18th of July. And Muminovic, page 3,
7 13th of July, Muminovic Dzemal, 13th of July, was found -- not Muminovic,
8 Bajro Dzemal -- Dzemal, son of Bajro.
9 A. 13th of July, 1995.
10 Q. Was found in the same grave?
11 A. Well, the only way I can interpret that, if that is correct, if
12 that is correct, that those dates are correct, for the time of death all
13 I can say is that these were burials that were carried out successively,
14 meaning that at one and the same location there were subsequent burials
15 carried out and that would be evidence of subsequent burials or of people
16 found who had died.
17 Q. Thank you. As for the first one --
18 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I'm just confused. If you could
19 assist us, either of you, Cancari Road is one of the primary graves?
20 MR. MITCHELL: Secondary, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. However, both of these persons according to information by the
24 B&H army, Avdic in 1992 and Muminovic in 1994, these are the dates given
25 for their death.
1 A. I don't know that --
2 JUDGE KWON: But, Professor, you are not in the position to
3 confirm -- so you are not in the position to confirm that?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not that I'm not in the position to
5 confirm that. I just simply don't have an explanation as to why there
6 are two dates. As an expert witness what I can say is that there is a
7 lot of evidence, forensic evidence, that bodies were buried subsequently
8 in these secondary and primary graves, that they were brought from
9 different areas, and in my view that is the key. That is why I said what
10 I said yesterday, that the list of people related to the events in
11 Srebrenica in July 1995 is not correct, that there are many more bodies
12 on the list than there were people who died in connection with Srebrenica
13 itself in July 1995. And this is just one more piece of evidence that
14 there was subsequent burials in the primary and secondary graves, that
15 bodies were brought to those graves that were found in the broader area
16 of Srebrenica that are not directly connected to Srebrenica. As for how
17 the army authorities at that time established these things, the way the
18 army was at that time, I believe that this was done by officers who were
19 given a certain assignment to make lists on a daily basis for those who
20 were killed in the army, when, where, in which circumstances, and what
21 was the cause of death.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Thank you, Professor. Let's finish with this document. Did you
24 see lists of the B&H army and do they correspond to the names that are
25 given in this collection here?
1 A. Yes, I did see the lists in electronic form, both in printed
2 forms, big piles like this, but I did not have the physical possibility
3 or enough time to compare each one and to go through each one. Who knows
4 what else is there on that list. Of course I am not even expert enough
5 myself in order to be able to check all of that.
6 Q. But do some of those names appear on this list as well?
7 A. Yes, some of those names do appear on this list, and as for what
8 the Prosecutor Mitchell said, first of all, we were there together so I
9 know who worked for the Vujadin Popovic Defence. This was done by a
10 demographer, this is true, but all the Defence lawyers gave this to me,
11 asking me to explain why there were two dates of death. I'm not there as
12 a demographer but as a forensics expert to explain to them how is it
13 possible to find at one location the body of a person who died three
14 years prior to the Srebrenica events and that is the basis on which I
15 draw my conclusion that these people were killed somewhere in fighting
16 elsewhere and that they were later found and subsequently buried there.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
18 document, please.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
20 MR. MITCHELL: No objection.
21 JUDGE KWON: I meant to mark it for identification until the
22 Chamber is satisfied with the foundation and veracity of the document.
23 But you would not challenge the content of the document. Is that your
24 position, Mr. Mitchell?
25 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, we would challenge the accuracy of
1 the information in it, but that can be done through other material. So I
2 don't object to this specific document coming in, but there will be
3 cross-examination on it and on the data in it.
4 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
5 Yes, Mr. Robinson.
6 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, also, Mr. President, it appears that this
7 document was admitted in the Popovic case so this should be some
8 sufficient reliability to at least mark it as a fully-fledged exhibit and
9 have these issues go to the weight.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Given the submissions of the parties,
11 the Chamber will admit it.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3812, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE KWON: But for the benefit of the future reading, I would
14 like to have a translation of the title and the first column. So shall
15 we mark it for identification pending the translation of that part.
16 Please continue.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we look at
18 1D25488 in e-court, please.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Professor, you kindly answered my questions and you drafted an
21 additional report. So could we briefly go through it. It's very clear,
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender the previous
24 report, the main report, into evidence so that we don't pile things up.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is my report of the
1 26th of August, 2012.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Thank you.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I have an answer regarding the
5 first main report that I am tendering, please, this is 1D25180?
6 MR. ROBINSON: I think Dr. Karadzic is asking the Chamber whether
7 this first report that we have been discussing up until now can be
8 admitted prior to moving to the second report.
9 JUDGE KWON: Oh, I misunderstood.
10 Mr. Mitchell.
11 MR. MITCHELL: No objection.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we will receive it.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3893, Your Honours.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellencies.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. May I ask you, sir, to introduce this document. I asked a few
17 concise questions, and so I would like to ask you -- and I asked you to
18 reply to them. So the document deals with the main objections on your
19 part from the point of view of forensics regarding the findings of OTP
20 experts on establishing the cause of death. This is under 1 on page 2.
21 Could you briefly just tell us what this is about.
22 A. Well, I will try to be as brief as possible about what I put on
23 the report. This report was drafted in relation or in comparison to
24 previous reports and in response to questions that you specifically
25 formulated. As an expert, I tried to make an overall analysis about the
1 things that I as a forensics specialist had objections to. The main and
2 basic thing is that the material is very voluminous and that reports were
3 submitted here through OTP experts, which I also listened to. These are
4 joint reports representing specific locations. These joint reports were
5 drafted on the basis of certain individual reports that were done by
6 different people, different pathologists, and forensics experts.
7 What I was bothered by the most, not only as a forensics expert
8 but -- not only myself but I believe that that would be shared by most
9 forensics experts in the world is that the conclusions were drafted on
10 the basis of some assumptions about the cause of death. The cause of
11 death is something that has to do with disease or injuries that would
12 cause the cessation of all the vital functions of a human organism.
13 These vital functions, if their cessation was caused by injuries, would
14 mean that they were inflicted when the person was still alive.
15 I will gradually explain this. These changes caused during life
16 can be found on the human body around the injury and in all the other
17 parts of the body or organs which respond in a particular way. Based on
18 these reactions, on soft and hard tissue and organs, especially the
19 respiratory, digestive, and central nervous system organs, we establish
20 these changes. The experts who worked here worked in such a way that
21 they adopted an assumption that all these people had to have been alive
22 before that, which is logical, and all those on whom injuries were found
23 died as a result of these particular injuries. However, this is just an
24 assumption and what should provide proof to the Court are the injuries
25 which must undoubtedly be so described and presented so that it can be
1 seen that it was precisely these injuries that led to death.
2 Why is this important in this specific case? We have two
3 aggravating circumstances here: Bodies which were dug out, exhumed,
4 after three, four, or more years which had already been completely
5 skeletonised or had decomposed to such a degree that it was impossible to
6 establish those reactions of the tissue when the person was still alive
7 in order to be able to establish that a particular injury on the head or
8 on the chest was actually the cause of death.
9 In his reports, John Clark and Christopher Lawrence, I mostly
10 talk about them as colleagues who are in the same profession and have the
11 same level of education that I do, they said that in their introduction.
12 But what ensued was that setting off from that assumption that those
13 people were alive at the time of injuries, all the injuries they had
14 found from fire-arms or from some other instrument, they considered them
15 to be ante-mortem injuries and then this was later adopted by the
16 anthropologists Baraybar and Haglund, which may not necessarily be true.
17 They can confirm that something like this is possible but they are not
18 forensics medical experts. So setting off from the assumption that these
19 were caused ante-mortem, they declared all injuries as such and only for
20 a minimal number they said were created post-mortem and then for a
21 certain smaller number they said that they were created immediately prior
22 to death. I cannot accept such a division. I believe that it's -- it
23 was absolutely essential that injuries that were noted should be
24 described and that these findings would need to be consistent with the
1 When I say that, I would try to present it in the following way.
2 A head injury which can be described as missing bone sections in a
3 skeletonised body, in one case it's declared to be an ante-mortem injury
4 caused during life and that that was the cause of death. In a similar,
5 different, case with the same defect of the skull bone it is declared as
6 a post-mortem injury or it is described in such a way that it is said
7 that an injury which would correspond to a gun-shot wound, for example.
8 And precisely for that reason, precisely for that reason, in the previous
9 cases and in this one, I wanted to show you something, what that means,
10 simply so that this could be clarified.
11 Is it possible to show these photographs? Is it possible to put
12 this on something?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please put the photograph
14 on the ELMO.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just wanted to show you this
16 particular photograph.
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Is this part of his report?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The first report.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the first report.
20 JUDGE KWON: Why don't we upload it for the benefit of reference
21 in the future?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is on page --
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. I'm afraid it's not in colour.
25 A. Yes, it is. Here you have it. It's on page 5 of the additional
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can it be displayed?
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. We're talking about the main report?
5 A. No, the subsequent report.
6 Q. The one that we already have?
7 A. This is it.
8 JUDGE KWON: [Previous translation continues]...
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. So far I have been talking
10 about the consistency of findings or the lack thereof. What does this
11 mean? It is inconsistent if it says that this injury is the defect of
12 the frontal part of the skull and the face without any precise
13 description. However, this is how all the pathologists described
14 injuries in their findings. And if you write it like that, you don't
15 know as lawyers, as legal experts, how this injury came about. I can
16 tell you that this injury was caused by fire-arms or perhaps somebody hit
17 somebody else with a baseball bat and caused the injury. But I know
18 because I was the one involved in this case.
19 When you describe this injury in great detail, you will arrive at
20 the conclusion that this murder was committed by an axe. This person was
21 killed with an axe because the edges are sharp and straight and there
22 were wounds on the soft tissues which is lacking at this moment.
23 Therefore, this is what I insist on when I talk about consistency.
24 Describe the injury and then tomorrow we will all be able to arrive at
25 the same conclusion.
1 The pathologist that worked on that described the injuries and
2 said that the injuries were consistent with gun-shot wounds. I don't
3 have the means to verify that. This is the consistency or the lack
5 Second of all, this is the appearance of a skeletised skull. For
6 this injury to be declared as the cause of death, that injury had to be
7 inflicted the moment when the person was still alive. If that person was
8 not alive but, for example, had died of a heart attack and then somebody
9 grabs an axe and hits that person with an axe, the injury would be the
10 same but that would not have been the cause of death. That's why we as
11 forensic experts insist on ante-mortem, peri-mortem, and post-mortem
12 details in order to be able to establish the cause of death.
13 Q. Thank you. Did you find in the materials that you perused, and
14 Dr. Lawrence spoke about that on page 2248 and 2249, if, for example, you
15 come across a skeletonised body with or without traces of a projectile
16 from fire-arms, can you tell us whether one can conclude how that person
17 died -- whether that person died in fighting or whether that person was
19 A. Whenever you come across soft tissue defects or hard tissue
20 defects implies certain morphological changes based on which a forensic
21 expert analyses all of the other traces on the body and around the body
22 or on the site where the body was found and such an expert can
23 reconstruct the trajectories of projectiles and the wounds. And based on
24 that, it may be assumed - it cannot be claimed, it may be
25 assumed - whether some of the injuries were inflicted when the person was
1 facing the assailant or whether he had his back turned to them. All of
2 the injuries that may be caused by fighting are the same as may be seen
3 as a result of execution. All that depends on the given situation.
4 In any case, there are many injuries here that point to the fact
5 that the person was injured during conflict, during fighting. There are
6 a lot of injuries here which were inflicted by various means, ranging
7 from projectiles to shells, shrapnel, and things like that. This implies
8 that nobody is executed by shelling. Shelling is a result of war
9 activities. People are executed by long-barrelled rifles or
10 machine-guns. I apologise. So what I am saying as a forensic expert is
11 that the diagnosis of an injury has to be supplemented with the channels
12 and trajectories and the distances from which it was fired in order to be
13 able to establish the position of the person who was injured vis-a-vis
14 the position of the fire-arms that was used.
15 Q. My question on page 2248 or 2249 was answered by Dr. Lawrence in
16 this way: In a large number of cases he was not able to determine the
17 cause of death.
18 Do you agree with that?
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, you should pause like this.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I answer?
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understood your question
23 properly, you said that Dr. Lawrence stated that in a large number of
24 cases he could not establish the cause of death. This is correct. This
25 is only correct thing. In such circumstances where the bodies were
1 putrefied and when exhumations are -- were carried out years after the
2 burial, it is impossible to establish the causes of death. We can only
3 assume. We can tell the Court: You know, Judge, this is a possible
4 cause of death but we cannot conclude with any certainty that a person
5 who was exhumed after such a long time died of a certain cause.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. We understand your objections; however, within the team itself,
8 among the pathologists, forensic experts, and anthropologists, were there
9 disagreements about the manner in which the task was carried out?
10 A. I don't know what the situation was in the field. I did have an
11 opportunity to see Mr. Haglund in 1996 at Ovcara. I -- shall I stop
12 here? Is there a problem?
13 I had an opportunity to read all of their reports. I listened to
14 them on two occasions here in this courtroom. Mr. Lawrence at one point
15 here when he spoke about Cancari Road said something that I couldn't
16 agree with as a forensic expert. I don't know if he said what he really
17 meant. However, he wrote the following about Cancari Road number 3 under
18 bullet point 12: There were a lot of head injuries, rib fractures, and
19 pelvis fractures which were intentionally inflicted post-mortem in order
20 to cover-up the injuries that were inflicted on the same parts of the
21 body peri-mortem. This is on page 4 of the report and I referred to it
22 for a simple reason. I just wanted to say that --
23 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
24 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
25 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, perhaps it might be helpful to look
1 at Dr. Lawrence's report. It doesn't actually say about injuries being
2 intentionally inflicted.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, please. Cancari Road 3,
4 everything that I put in my report are quotes from the document.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is ERN number 00920597.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, 0597.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 0597, after 2, 0597.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Under 12 and here you have it.
9 This is here and --
10 JUDGE KWON: Professor --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- this is a document --
12 JUDGE KWON: It's not helpful.
13 Can we upload it.
14 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, Dr. Lawrence's report, the
15 original, is -- had 65 ter 2472.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then we will use the ERN number to
17 help us.
18 THE WITNESS: We need the first page -- second page, 12.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Where can we find the passage?
20 THE WITNESS: Number 12 [Interpretation] Under bullet point 12.
21 JUDGE KWON: Where can we find the passage "intentional"?
22 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
23 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, it's possible just a translation
24 issue but Professor Dunjic is talking about point 12. He talks about it
25 in his report as well.
1 JUDGE KWON: Could you read out number 12, Professor.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Bullet point 12 in the translation:
3 "There were many post-mortem injuries of the skull, ribs, and
4 pelvis which were intentionally inflicted post-mortem in order to cover
5 up peri-mortem injuries inflicted on the same parts of the body."
6 JUDGE KWON: Probably there seems to be an issue with
8 MR. MITCHELL: There could be. I'm not sure that
9 Professor Dunjic has quite accurately quoted the B/C/S translation of
10 this in his report --
11 JUDGE KWON: But, Dr. Dunjic, you can read English, can't you?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon?
13 JUDGE KWON: Do you read English?
14 THE WITNESS: A little, yes.
15 JUDGE KWON: You can read out in English there, which is
16 original, which appears on the right side of the computer -- the monitor
17 which seems to be different from what you read in B/C/S.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I wouldn't know how to
19 precisely translate the following phrase: [In English] "... pelvis which
20 would tend to obscure peri-mortem injury in these regions."
21 [Interpretation] I don't know how to translate this. I was
22 relying on the Serbian translation. However, irrespective of that,
23 Judge, irrespective of the fact that something was done intentionally or
24 non-intentionally, to claim that some injuries were inflicted
25 subsequently for whatever reason, I as a forensic expert have to know and
1 I have to have elements for such a claim. When did injuries occur?
2 Which ones were the first and which ones were the last? So even if we
3 disregard the term "intentional infliction," if we just concentrate on
4 things that happened post-mortem and what the objective was, then my
5 question to Lawrence would be this: How did you establish the sequence
6 of injuries and the sequence of their inflictions -- infliction? Could
7 those injuries be -- have been inflicted simultaneously? Were they
8 inflicted by one or several persons and so on and so forth?
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you. When I asked you about the disagreements within the
11 teams - and you'll find it on page 3 - can you tell us something about
12 the panel in San Antonio and that disagreement. What were the objections
13 proffered by the team members themselves?
14 A. I said the last time and I also included this in my report. I
15 was quite surprised, to use the understatement, I was quite surprised
16 when I heard the fact that Mr. Haglund included in all of his reports,
17 and we are talking about the Cerska document dated 15 June. That fact
18 was that post-mortem examinations started on the 31st of July, 1996,
19 you'll find it on page 3. That they lasted until 22nd August 1996.
20 Post-mortems were carried out in makeshift morgues in the Kalesija
21 textile factory which had been damaged during the war. Post-mortems were
22 supervised by Dr. Robert Kirschner who was the director of the
23 international forensic programme of the Medecins Sans Frontieres. When
24 they defined the final conclusion about the cause of death and when they
25 redacted the final version of post-mortem reports, they were helped by a
1 legal expert of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
2 Mr. Peter McCloskey.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to call up page 3 in
4 the document.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Legal expert Peter McCloskey.
6 Whereas "the summary of all the pathological reports was authored by
7 Dr. Page Hudson," end of quote. William Haglund is the author of these
8 words in his report on page 11 and this is his report on Cerska -- the
9 year was 1968, page 3 --
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I be helpful, it's 1D25488,
11 rather than this document, 1D25488.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. While we're waiting for it, Professor, can you tell us the
14 following. The whole process of reconciling different opinions, the
15 assistance provided by Mr. McCloskey, how could this entire procedure
16 have influenced the accuracy of all the findings?
17 A. Yes, now we have the right page. Please have a look at what I
18 quoted. It's the third passage from the top, William Haglund.
19 First of all, this is absolutely unacceptable professionally
20 speaking. It is unacceptable for professionals, physicians, making up a
21 joint team to have their opinions which may be made consistent or they
22 maybe agreed upon their mutual opinions, but to have their opinions
23 redacted or edited in any way afterwards. In this case it was done by a
24 legal advisor, Mr. Peter McCloskey. The only conclusion that I may draw
25 is that this was done deliberately. It's not just my conclusion that I
1 arrived at - Mr. Haglund didn't like it - but it was also the
2 international symposium held at San Antonio that took note of that. And
3 I think that Mr. Mitchell is aware of this, we discussed this the other
4 time in the Popovic case. Serious objections were voiced against such a
6 My colleagues across the world did not want to take part in teams
7 such as this one. Many of my colleagues refused to take part in the work
8 of the team in Bosnia, precisely because they did not want to have their
9 work being corrected, redacted, edited, et cetera. Everyone needs to
10 take responsibility for their own work. So when I came across this
11 section, I wrote this in my report. I am not surprised at the fact that
12 the conclusions about deaths are so uniform although they stand in
13 contradiction to autopsy reports.
14 Q. Thank you, Professor.
15 JUDGE KWON: Professor, does this document -- that Mr. McCloskey
16 edited the report himself? Does this document say that Mr. McCloskey
17 edited the report?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it says here in the
19 formulation of a final conclusion about the cause and manner of death as
20 well as in editing the final formulation -- as well as editing of final
21 autopsy report was facilitated by the legal advisor, Peter McCloskey.
22 JUDGE KWON: How -- what do you understand the meaning of
23 "facilitation"? How do you understand that to mean?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what happened in my opinion
25 and what I'm telling you now is my personal opinion. All the forensic
1 officers who were engaged in that exercise had gone through such training
2 that I went through and this is that when you have a skeletonised body
3 you don't know the cause of death. In that case, what you would write
4 down in your conclusion under number 1 is precisely this, that the corpse
5 is in such a stage of decomposition that an accurate cause of death
6 cannot be established, full stop. Under 2, you would say that an autopsy
7 carried out on a putrefied or skeletonised body, such and such injuries
8 originating from such and such mechanism were noted. Then under 3,
9 according to some schools of forensic medicine, you may possibly write
10 what could possibly have been the cause of death, which means that if the
11 injuries under number 1 of the conclusion were inflicted ante mortem,
12 then they could have led to the person's death. So again this is written
13 as an assumption or hypothesis. And most of the forensic physicians
14 would formulate this conclusion. However, what this requires is a
15 different sort of approach. I believe that the legal advisor wanted to
16 skip many a step and to directly tie-in his conclusion -- the conclusion
17 with what he was able to see on the ground.
18 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I'm going to object at this point.
19 This is just rank speculation now, and you've heard evidence from
20 Dr. Haglund at transcript 23940 on what actually happened. So I think
21 Professor Dunjic should stick to his expertise for the remainder of his
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may, I think that this was in
25 response to a question put by the Presiding Judge. I'm responding to the
1 objection by Mr. Mitchell.
2 JUDGE KWON: Meaning of "facilitation." The Chamber is of the
3 view that we heard enough. Shall we move on?
4 Given the time, shall we take a break?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I put one more question? Just
6 one question.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Professor, further down the text you quote the remarks by
9 Dorothy Gallagher, Yvonne Milewski, David del Pino, and others. Their
10 comments with regard to the influence made on the conclusions and
11 findings, are they consistent with what you've just told us?
12 A. Yes. They went precisely to state the reasons for their
13 discontent, which was exactly what I said, that there was too much
14 subjectivity and too little objectivity.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I offer or tender this
17 document? Although we still have two minutes left we could clarify the
18 third document and we could then take the break after completing the
20 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber has no difficulty with it. Please
22 Any objection, Mr. Mitchell?
23 MR. MITCHELL: No objection to either report, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive 1D25488.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3894, Your Honours.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll need some 15 minutes,
2 actually, perhaps we should take the break.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
4 We'll resume at ten past 11.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 11.14 a.m.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 Can we have 1D9321.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Professor Dunjic, you said that the Prosecutor Nice asked of the
12 BH army or the ministry to be provided with information about the dates
13 of death or dates of persons gone missing.
14 A. This is in English?
15 Q. Yes. Is this the document?
16 A. Yes, yes. It's the case against Milosevic, Prosecutor Nice.
17 That's how I came to learn that there were some individuals who were
18 killed before July 1995.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 4 -- sorry,
21 page 6.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Can you tell us, what does the minister or the person signing on
24 behalf of the minister say as a conclusion? Start with the sentence
25 beginning with "in view of ..."
1 A. Yes, this is the reply by the federal minister of the BH army in
2 response to a request by Geoffrey Nice. And the last sentence reads, and
3 I'll quote:
4 "In view of the fact that the said individuals in the majority of
5 cases were killed while attempting to cross over to the
6 BH-army-controlled territory following the capture of Srebrenica, it is
7 very difficult to come by verified information relative to the
8 circumstances surrounding their death."
9 Q. What does this tell you, Professor?
10 A. Well, it speaks to the --
11 JUDGE KWON: Just a second --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- segment that I was discussing
13 and that's how difficult it is to claim --
14 JUDGE KWON: Put a pause, please.
15 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
16 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President. I don't know whether this is
17 deliberately misleading --
18 JUDGE KWON: Do we have English translation?
19 MR. MITCHELL: Yes, it's the next page. And this is dealing with
20 that same issue as on the list that we were looking at earlier,
21 142 members of the BH army who were listed as missing in earlier areas
22 and it's providing 135 death certificates and lists. So the whole point
23 of this letter is to say that there are only seven cases remaining to be
25 JUDGE KWON: I didn't follow. I asked you whether we had English
1 translation and you said "yes."
2 MR. MITCHELL: It should be the very next page, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE KWON: This is --
4 MR. MITCHELL: It's in the same packet of documents. This one
5 ends with the ERN 79. The ERN ending 80 is the English version. I have
6 a copy that we can put on the ELMO if that would assist.
7 JUDGE KWON: Do you have a separate 65 ter number, Mr. Mitchell?
8 MR. MITCHELL: No, Mr. President, but I do have a hard copy of
10 JUDGE KWON: Shall we put it on the ELMO?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] ERN number 880, those are the last
12 digits, and that's the translation of this response by Minister Nikolic.
13 JUDGE KWON: But why is it missing from the Defence document,
14 Mr. Karadzic? We have 879 which is a B/C/S document which we see before
15 us, but why is the next page missing from your compilation?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Maybe it was omitted when it was
17 being scanned. At any rate, there should be all of the documents in
18 Serbian lumped together and then followed by the documents in English.
19 JUDGE KWON: Now we can see it from the ELMO, while probably not
20 the case of interpreters but we can follow the B/C/S through personal
21 computer. Could you put ...
22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I was told that you can find the
24 English translation in page 11.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Excellencies. If we look at
1 the ERN numbers, this is the sequence. The ERN numbers are consecutive.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, the English translation was put after the list.
3 That seems to be the case.
4 Can we put in e-court both English and the B/C/S, i.e., page 6 on
5 the left side and page 11 on the right side.
6 Yes. Shall we continue, Mr. Karadzic.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Did you have this material in your hands, Professor?
9 A. I did have the material in my hands. They were certificates
10 issued by the BH army for the individuals mentioned by Geoffrey Nice.
11 They were death certificates issued in a very short period of time.
12 These certificates that Geoffrey Nice was asking about stated that the
13 individuals were killed along the Srebrenica-Potocari road in the month
14 of July 1995. Accordingly, the document issued by the BH army is one
15 that has to be taken into consideration because it refutes the very list
16 that they made themselves about the times and places of death of these
17 individuals. On the other hand, it does not seem to be a credible death
18 certificate that would be normally issued in the event of the death of an
19 individual. It's just some sort of a certifying statement. I don't want
20 to speculate or guess why this was done the way it was.
21 What I found interesting as a forensic expert is that these
22 individuals which, according to Geoffrey Nice and the BH army list, were
23 killed in 1992, 1993, 1994, were recovered in the Srebrenica area. And
24 this confirms the thesis that they were subsequently recovered and
25 brought to these primary and secondary graves. And of course the
1 evidence concerning putrefaction is consistent with the time-periods.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 7 of the document.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
5 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, again, this needs to be clear. It
6 wasn't Geoffrey Nice's case that these people were killed in 1992, 1993,
7 1994. The whole point why this letter was written was to ask that
8 question, and this was the response.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Can you please look on the first name on this page, Porobic Ramo
12 Adil, and then on the 18th page can you see what the time of death was as
13 reported to the B&H army by the OTP concerning this Porobic.
14 A. Adil Porobic, son of Ramo. Is that who you're asking about?
15 Q. The first one on the screen.
16 A. Adil Porobic, son of Ramo, and his time of death is the
17 1st of January, 1994.
18 Q. All right. Thank you. Can we look at the next person, please.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 18, actually,
20 when the certificate was issued as to when he was killed, page 18 of this
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see on the left-hand side of
23 the screen this is a certificate I was talking about, certificates issued
24 on a half a page issued by the army authorities of the B&H. Can I look
25 at the whole screen, the document on the whole screen? Yes, thank you.
1 Where it says the named person as member of the B&H army. You cannot see
2 what it is on the stamp. On the 12th of July, 1995, probably died, on
3 the Srebrenica-Tuzla road while on assignment. And there it is, the B&H
4 army says "missing," meaning under item 2:
5 "The above-named as member of the B&H army disappeared on the
6 12th of July at the location Srebrenica-Tuzla road while on assignment,"
7 meaning as a soldier. This Porobic, Adil, son of Ramo, that refers to
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now go back to page 7,
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. And can you please look at the following entry, Halilovic. When
15 did the army inform Nice as to the time of his death or the time when he
16 was killed?
17 A. Bajro Halilovic, is that the one you're talking about?
18 Q. No. Halil.
19 A. Second in line, below Porobic. Number 2 on the screen.
20 Halilovic, Srebrenica-Tuzla road, again the 12th of July, 1995, it says
22 Q. And then what about the official notification, the reply by the
23 ministry, what is the time -- the date of death cited?
24 A. The 1st of January, 1994, Ilidza-Sarajevo.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at page 19, please.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. When is the time of death and where?
4 A. Yes, this is again this certificate, where it states that he
5 disappeared on the 12th of July on the Srebrenica-Tuzla road while on
6 assignment. And that he's in the record of the military unit from the
7 1st of January, 1994, until the 12th of July, 1995. This is the top row.
8 Q. And according to the report, he was killed in 1994?
9 A. And according to the report by the military commission, he was
10 killed on the 1st of January, 1994.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now go back to page 7,
14 Q. [Microphone not activated]
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Dzevad Buhic, son of Dzevad.
18 A. I see it. As noted here, the time of death -- I apologise. The
19 time of death is the 4th of June, 1992, Kladanj, missing, Gradacac,
21 Q. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 22, please.
23 JUDGE KWON: Just one clarification, Mr. Mitchell, we do not have
24 a translation for this page?
25 MR. MITCHELL: I don't believe we've got translations of all the
1 death certificates.
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the certificate of death
4 provided on the 29th of July, 2004, from the Federation authorities for
5 Dzevad Buhic, son of Serif, certificate that he was born in Zutica on the
6 17th of August, 1973, is in the records of military unit from the
7 4th of June, 1992, until the 12th of July, 1995, named as a member of the
8 B&H army and disappeared on the 12th of July, 1995, on the
9 Srebrenica-Tuzla road while on assignment. This is what is stated in the
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Thank you. And in fact he went missing on the Kladanj road on
13 the 4th of June, 1992, according to the official reply?
14 A. Yes, according to that list, yes.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please -- I would like to
17 tender this document.
18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Mitchell.
19 MR. MITCHELL: No objection.
20 JUDGE KWON: We'll mark it for identification until we have the
21 full translation of the document. And we also need a translation of the
22 legend in the list, for example, the date of birth and such items.
23 Yes, shall we assign a number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit MFI D3815, Your Honours.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we look at 1D9320,
2 JUDGE KWON: Could we hear the number again.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D --
4 JUDGE KWON: No, no, no, the exhibit number.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3815, Your Honours. That was one of the
6 documents that was withdrawn yesterday by Mr. Robinson.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. I have a letter in front of me which Mr. Mitchell kindly sent to
10 all the Defence teams talking about the proofing with you -- actually,
11 about your testimony. Can you please tell us whether you know of this
12 document and whether -- actually, can you tell us what the gist of the
13 document is.
14 A. In this document, this is from the Vujadin Popovic et al. case
15 and it's an official confirmation that this person - I don't want to say
16 the name - was marked as Srebrenica Potocari 1/1 has been determined to
17 have committed suicide. So it's not a Srebrenica victim.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And this person is on the list of
21 victims, the Srebrenica victims, and there was an intervention
22 subsequently and that is why this was sent.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Professor, Srebrenica victims, would that imply that these were
25 all victims of execution?
1 A. When you stress that in the title of all the lists of the
2 missing, there is talk about victims of crimes and so on and so forth
3 which I as a forensics expert cannot use. I can provide evidence or not
4 provide sufficient degree of evidence as to whether there was an
5 execution or not. This is something that I cannot comment on, but it's a
6 fact that this person was placed on the victims of the Srebrenica events
7 but actually he committed suicide in 1994, let's say.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like this tender this.
9 MR. MITCHELL: No objection, Mr. President. But just to be very
10 clear, this individual didn't commit suicide in 1994. He killed himself
11 on the 12th of July, 1995, in Potocari. He is buried in a single grave
12 completely separate from the nine bodies at issue in our case.
13 JUDGE KWON: Probably this document speaks for itself.
14 Yes, we'll admit it.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3895, Your Honours.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at 1D9315, please.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Are you familiar with this letter by Gordon Bacon, head of the
19 ICMP office, addressed to Husein Jakupovic of the Una-Sana canton, and
20 can you please read the first sentence of the second paragraph for us,
22 A. In order to familiarise the Trial Chamber with the broader
23 context of this answer, Mr. Gordon Bacon, who I believe I know because he
24 did come to my institute, this was in 2003 -- the letter is from 2003.
25 In Sarajevo, over there, the ICMP was working on certain identifications
1 and he as the head of ICMP in Sarajevo and Bosnia, of their programme for
2 identification of missing persons, received objections from families and
3 from some other people who worked in these identification centres and,
4 among other things, there were letters from Mr. Odobasic and others who
5 were working on the identification of missing persons. And so then he
6 answers them, replies to these objections of theirs. And now I'm going
7 to try to read that to you.
8 "However, the case cannot be closed only based on DNA structures
9 match. Experienced police inspectors, pathologists, anthropologists, and
10 other experts have to put significant efforts for the identification
11 process to be done in accordance with the highest standards and to help
12 families to find out about the destiny of their missing beloved ones ..."
13 Q. Thank you. You mentioned Odobasic who also disagreed with the
14 work. Where is Odobasic from? From which -- from which circle of
16 JUDGE KWON: Before you answer.
17 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, this is getting a long way from
18 Professor Dunjic's expertise as a pathologist. He's now testifying about
19 ICMP and we're about to get into allegations made against ICMP. It's got
20 nothing to do with his expertise. These were questions for Dr. Parsons,
21 if anyone.
22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson or Mr. Karadzic.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that now we're not dealing
24 with the DNA, but we are beginning to deal with a general picture of
25 disputing the work that preceded the expertise of Mr. Dunjic. Thus,
1 everything that was done earlier was subject to objections by other
2 instances, by other participants, objections that are similar to those
3 stated by Professor Dunjic in his expert report and which substantiate
4 the conclusions of Professor Dunjic.
5 JUDGE KWON: Not knowing the content of this document, I'm not
6 fully convinced why this was to be led by Mr. Dunjic. I will consult my
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber has doubt whether -- that this is
10 related to his expertise. Please move on to another topic, Mr. Karadzic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Do you know who Eva Klonowski is and what is her field expertise
14 and what did she do in these processes?
15 A. I did hear that she worked as an anthropologist in the process of
16 identifications at the beginning of the work in 1996 in Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina at these localities. She worked as an expert engaged by the
18 International Tribunal, and she assisted in the identifications in the
19 period before laboratories were set up for DNA identification.
20 Q. Thank you. And who is Jasmin Odobasic?
21 A. I don't know him, but I see from the letter that it's a person
22 who was the head at the level of some republican -- I don't know what he
23 was, some kind of republican desk officer for, what do you call them,
24 missing persons, for finding them, president. He actually stated a
25 series of objections to the work of Madam Klonowski and some other
1 associates because there were many complaints about identifications that
2 had been carried out that -- so far. Because of erroneous
3 identifications, the families did not want to take the bodies. So they
4 had to repeat the autopsies, those who were buried under certain name,
5 the families requested fresh autopsies and DNA identification and this is
6 where this exchange of letters happened between them. And that is the
7 goal, objective, of the letter of Gordon Bacon. This is what I wanted to
8 help you with because here he was providing guide-lines that they cannot
9 take over all of the responsibility upon themselves.
10 JUDGE KWON: Why don't you move on to another topic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to show a letter by
12 Mr. Odobasic to the chief prosecutor, if I may be allowed to do so.
13 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, this is the exact topic that you
14 just told Mr. Karadzic to move on from.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I will move on to my
16 final topic.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Professor, the Prosecution experts, did they provide collective
19 reports? What did they combine in those reports?
20 A. Evidence was led by the Prosecution experts about numerous
21 localities, i.e., numerous mass graves. These reports are collective
22 reports pertaining to certain locations. These collective reports
23 actually explain the method of work on each of the locations as well as
24 collective conclusions of all the individual autopsy reports that pertain
25 to a particular location. Thus, the collective reports are the
1 reflections of individual situations that were established by
3 And now we come to the key thing that I've tried to explain all
4 the time. A lot of effort was invested, a lot of work was carried out;
5 however, in order to assess the validity of the collective reports, when
6 I had doubts I had to evaluate all the individual reports. In some
7 situations and in a certain number of cases which I have mentioned here,
8 I realised that individual reports were not presented in the way they
9 should be presented by an expert pathologist, whereas in the collective
10 report, the chief pathologists Clark and Lawrence, I would be free to say
11 that they took it into account all those cases and they represented them
12 with some reservations, albeit. However, they never found it appropriate
13 to correct such individual reports. Very often they provided their own
14 free interpretation of those erroneous reports. I will go back to that a
15 bit later.
16 What is important here is that Haglund and Baraybar are
17 anthropologists and they did their own collective reports with comments.
18 I commented upon their findings; however, they also embarked on some very
19 free interpretations of the findings they saw which went beyond the scope
20 of their own line of work. For example, Mr. Haglund, reporting on
21 Pilica, amongst other things states as follows: The additional bullet
22 wounds on the heads of various victims point to the fact that the fire
23 was opened from a close vicinity or close range. That comment itself
24 goes beyond the scope of his profession. As an anthropologist, he cannot
25 answer - either myself or Clark or Lawrence - how he knows that out of
1 the 10 or 15 wounds, one wound is additional, which means that it could
2 be created three hours, five days, or 15 days after the last in a series.
3 He doesn't have any forensic evidence to prove that an additional wound
4 on the head is indeed an additional wound. Nobody can conclude that. I
5 can't, nobody else can. So this is a free interpretation of a finding
6 which carries a certain connotation before the Court. If something is
7 additional on the head, for example, a wound on the head, if it's
8 subsequent, that means that somebody had an absolute intention either to
9 kill that person, to finish that person off, or to inflict the wound for
10 whatever reason. But in any case, with a good intention. But there is
11 no physical evidence to prove that allegation, apart from the location of
12 the wound itself.
13 This means that the collective reports reflect what was done on
14 the location; however, some comments provided by the authors of those
15 collective reports are very arbitrary in some situations and they are not
16 based on the objectively established facts.
17 Q. Thank you. Professor, when you sum up unreliable or inaccurate,
18 individual reports, can you end up with an accurate collective report?
19 Does a collective report somehow improve the situation of individual
20 reports. In other words, the omissions that were made in individual
21 reports, how do they reflect on a collective report?
22 A. As an expert, I find it very difficult to talk about that. It's
23 up to the Trial Chamber to be the judge of that. However, the individual
24 mistakes, omissions, and comments that exist point to the objections that
25 some other people had and they said that there was a lot of subjectivism
1 and very little objectivism. That was noted in international
2 professional circles. The information that was received from elsewhere,
3 and Lawrence and Clark testified to that as well as Richard Clark [as
4 interpreted], i.e., that they found information about Srebrenica in
5 newspapers and in the local media, I believe that that had a lot of
6 impact on the drafting of the local report -- of the collective report.
7 Because if I find that out of 100 or 280 or 280 people who were exhumed
8 from one location, that all of them were killed, i.e., that they were
9 wounded from fire-arms when they were still alive and that they were
10 intentionally, as it were, killed and then I read a post-mortem findings
11 for all of the casualties and I find out that in 80 per cent of such
12 conclusions, these conclusions are not objectively sustainable because
13 there is no single proof that the injuries were inflicted ante mortem,
14 then there is something wrong with such a report unless we adopt a
15 doctrine and unless we adopt a position or unless conclusions are
16 redacted in the way the legal advisor of the International Tribunal
17 redacted them.
18 Q. When it comes to the co-ordination that we discussed, would that
19 replace such a doctrine? Do the participants owe something to that
20 co-ordination, to that agreement?
21 A. I apologise. I can't comment, but the fact is that I noticed
22 something else and I have to share that with the Trial Chamber, since
23 I've been involved in the cases surrounding Srebrenica for such a long
24 time. Up to 2000, that's how things were described. After the year
25 2000, when exhumations continued and post-mortems of the bodies that were
1 found in those graves continued, the pathologists who were hired,
2 Siklas [phoen], Sarajlic, and others, took into account the objections,
3 not only mine as an expert, but also of others. They corrected the way
4 they provided their conclusions. Where bodies were skeletonised, they
5 said that the bodies were skeletonised and that it was not possible to
6 establish a cause of death with any degree of reliability. And that was
7 consistent with the findings. Unlike in the other cases where there was
8 no consistency, and there was no consistency, there was no proof of the
9 injuries being inflicted ante mortem. The bodies are skeletonised, and
10 you say that the cause of death is a head injury because there was a
11 defect of -- in the skull, but nobody can prove that the defect was
12 created ante mortem. I'm not denying that that may have been the case,
13 but I cannot accept that that was the cause of death.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, I tender this
15 document into evidence. Mr. Mitchell said that he did not have any
16 questions about the reports.
17 JUDGE KWON: Have we not admitted it? Is there any document
19 MR. MITCHELL: I have no objections to the report. I do object
20 to that letter that was just on the screen now.
21 JUDGE KWON: We admitted two reports. Is there a third one?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I wanted to ask the
23 Professor this --
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
25 Q. In your first two reports you referred to expert report in the
1 Popovic case. You do not repeat things, you just refer to them. Would
2 you say that the Popovic case expert report is one and a whole with the
3 first two reports?
4 A. Absolutely, the expert report that I provided in the Popovic case
5 and the individual reports that I provided in all those cases - there are
6 several such reports because there were six Defence teams and I did some
7 work for each of them - and what I said before the Trial Chamber could be
8 incorporated into these two reports and can be used in your case because
9 we're talking about the same event and we are using the same documents.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender that report
11 as well, 1D25489.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
13 MR. MITCHELL: No objection.
14 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive it.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3896, Your Honours.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 20, 52, I asked the Professor
17 whether they made up an organic unity, and that has not been recorded.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you, Professor.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellencies. I have no
21 further questions for the witness.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
23 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Mitchell:
25 Q. Professor, we just heard you, it's at page 49 of today's
1 transcript, criticise Dr. Haglund and Dr. Baraybar for interpreting
2 findings that you say went beyond the scope of their own line of work.
3 Let me ask you, you're not a military expert, are you?
4 A. Did you say "military expert"?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Is that what you had in mind? I'm not a military expert. I'm a
7 forensic expert.
8 Q. Yes. And you're not an expert in the type of clothing worn by
9 the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, are you?
10 A. No, I'm not an expert. I don't know what kind of uniforms the
11 BiH army --
12 Q. That's all I'm asking, Professor. Yes or no?
13 A. -- wore. But what does that have to do with Haglund? I don't
14 understand that --
15 Q. Well, we'll get to that in a little while, Professor. You're not
16 an expert in the type of headwear worn by members of the BiH, are you?
17 A. I don't even know whether such experts exist.
18 Q. You're not a demographer?
19 A. I'm not.
20 Q. And you're not an expert in DNA identifications?
21 A. I'm not an expert in DNA identifications; however, identification
22 is a process in forensic medicine which is a process and in DNA
23 identifications it's only one part of it. But forensic experts do most
24 of the work, and we're talking about anthropological and forensic
25 examinations that are carried out in identifications. That is one of the
1 principal methods in my profession. I'm not exclusively a DNA expert,
2 that would imply something else. I'm a person who performs
3 identification in a forensic practice using DNA reports as well.
4 Q. Right. You take samples and you submit them for DNA analysis,
5 but you are not an expert in the actual process of DNA matching, are you?
6 A. Yes, technicians and biologists do that, they are trained.
7 However, I as a forensic expert have to know whether the procedure for
8 DNA identification was carried out properly. If it wasn't carried out
9 properly in compliance with the protocol, as a forensic expert I have to
10 intervene. When I receive --
11 Q. Professor, please --
12 A. -- a so-called DNA profile --
13 Q. -- let me stop you there. You said "technicians and biologists
14 do that, they are trained."
15 You are not trained in the process of DNA matching, yes or no?
16 A. No --
17 Q. Thank you --
18 A. -- I'm not, no.
19 Q. Now, we saw in your reports that your critique of the
20 Prosecution's anthropologist is based on information that you say was
21 pointed out to you by Professor M aria Djuric, the president of the
22 Serbian Anthropological Society. So you consulted Professor Djuric --
23 A. Yes --
24 Q. -- because you're not professionally qualified as an
25 anthropologist, are you? We can see on your CV, no qualifications as an
1 anthropologist; right?
2 A. I must repeat and I must tell you again. I don't have
3 qualifications in anthropology to the same --
4 Q. That's all I asked you --
5 A. -- extent that --
6 Q. -- Professor. I know you're part of a process. But I'm asking
7 you, you don't have qualifications --
8 A. Please, let me finish --
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Allow me to tell you, within the
11 framework of my profession, which is forensic medicine, there is also
12 training and education in the process of identification. One of the
13 elements is the anthropological examination that I also do as part of my
14 specialisation. However, there are people who are more specialised in
15 that. Maria Djuric is one of them and I consult her. And that goes for
16 DNA matching. I consult Professor Oliver Stojkovic, I ask him whether
17 DNA matching was done properly or whether a certain DNA profile matches
18 the DNA profile of the victim. He then takes a look and he tells me:
19 This was not properly done, or, alternatively, he tells me: There is a
20 certain match. As a forensic expert, I have to have information about
21 the process of identification, but it is absolutely allowed to consult
22 people who know more within the area. That's why I shared with you that
23 I consulted Marija Djuric on the matching of bones.
24 You know, Mr. Mitchell, the last time we talked -- I'm put in a
25 situation that I should either accept a report the way it was drafted or
1 to voice my objections to it. For example, it says in the report a
2 75-year-old male and then I say: Okay, I can accept that, but give me
3 proof that the man was 75. In that autopsy report and in that
4 anthropology report, it has to say -- there has to be some proof of the
5 person's age, the person's gender. I didn't have that at that --
6 therefore, I had to object, and this is what I'm saying.
7 I apologise, but I felt that that -- it was my duty to tell you
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The length of the bone was not
10 recorded and that was part of the witness's answer.
11 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
12 MR. MITCHELL:
13 Q. So your answer is: No, you're not qualified as an
14 anthropologist; right?
15 JUDGE KWON: Shall we continue? He answered the question.
16 MR. MITCHELL:
17 Q. And you're not qualified as an archaeologist either, are you?
18 A. No.
19 MR. MITCHELL: Right. Can I have 65 ter 1D25488 in e-court,
20 that's page 3 in the English and the B/C/S.
21 Q. We can see here in your report, Professor, that you repeat some
22 of the allegations that were made in some witness statements given to the
23 San Antonio Committee.
24 MR. MITCHELL: If I can have Exhibit P4338 in e-court now.
25 Q. What you're about to see, Professor, is the final report of the
1 San Antonio Committee.
2 MR. MITCHELL: If we go to page 4 in both the English and the
3 B/C/S and then over to page 5.
4 Q. Professor, there's actually quite a number of additional
5 statements given to the San Antonio Committee other than the ones that
6 you cited in your report; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you only selected the ones that made criticisms of
9 Dr. Haglund; right? You only repeated those ones in your report?
10 A. No. Not only the ones with criticisms of Dr. Haglund, but where
11 there's criticism of the whole work, of the process, from the moment the
12 exhumations started. Everything that is written here is not only aimed
13 at Haglund, but the entire manner the exhumations and post-mortems were
14 carried out and how they were influenced from out -- from the outside.
15 That's the point. I really appreciate --
16 Q. I understand that --
17 A. -- Dr. Haglund as an expert. I watched him work and we already
18 discussed that, Mr. Prosecutor, when we discussed this in the
19 Vujadin Popovic case, we already discussed this. You showed me the same
20 document and you pointed at the same thing to me then.
21 Q. The point was, Professor, when you chose to cite to certain
22 witness statements that were in the San Antonio report, you only chose
23 the critical ones; right?
24 A. I believe that the criticism expressed made it possible to
25 improve the quality of work. I believe this criticism to have been
1 objective coming from those individuals over there. I didn't know
2 anything about it when I got the document.
3 Q. Okay. Well, let's go to page 7. And let me read you the very
4 first sentence under the heading "Findings." So we're not dealing with
5 allegations in witness statements anymore, we're dealing with findings.
6 The very first sentence says:
7 "The responses of the witnesses did not indicate any actual
8 wrong-doing on the part of Dr. Haglund nor anything regarding the
9 exhumations that jeopardised their scientific validity."
10 Now, that's not objective or impartial, is it, Professor, to
11 quote allegations about Dr. Haglund and ignore the actual finding of the
12 committee, is it?
13 A. I don't understand the drift of your question. Am I supposed to
14 give comments on this?
15 Q. I'm suggesting, Professor, that you've cherry-picked allegations
16 about Dr. Haglund and you've deliberately ignored the findings here in
17 your effort to criticise the Prosecution's evidence.
18 A. No. It was not my intention or goal to do that or for that to
19 relate to Haglund alone. My criticism of the entire findings that I
20 reviewed concerned other experts who are not mentioned here and who
21 worked in the project later. My approach was not aimed at cherry-picking
22 only the negative aspects. It is very proper and ethically moral of
23 Mr. Haglund, who testified about how findings and conclusions were
24 drafted. You have to know that both in my profession and his the -- that
25 went a bit beyond the pale. So of course, I took into consideration what
1 he wrote, but I had to write what others had to say and what was
3 If Lawrence - Christopher Lawrence isn't mentioned here - but if
4 in his report he says perforating injuries of soft tissue and there is no
5 soft tissue to be found, this is a random conclusion that he made and I
6 had to make a note of that in my report. Of course, up to that point he
7 did do other things, but I had to bring it to the notice of the
8 Trial Chamber that not everything was done properly. And I had to say
9 that it was an error when they said that the projectile was found in the
10 heart, whereas death came about as a result of suffocation --
11 Q. Okay. Back to Dr. Haglund, you said you had to write what the
12 others had said. You didn't trust that we could read these in the
13 San Antonio report for ourselves? You thought you'd pick them out and
14 repeat them again in your report?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, you worked with Dr. Haglund at Ovcara farm in 1996, didn't
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. And in fact, isn't it true that you found Dr. Haglund's work to
20 be so professional that you tried to emulate his methods during your own
21 work at Lake Radonjic in Kosovo, didn't you?
22 A. Correct. This is something I told you the other time. The man
23 did such a wonderful piece of work in 1996, I was there, saw it for the
24 first time, and there's nothing to conceal there. I'm not attacking him
25 because what he did wasn't good. What I am disagreeing with is his
1 opinion. He said what additional injuries were and he said that they
2 were instrumental, and I know that based on his profession and training
3 this isn't something that he can assert, plus there is no evidence to
4 underpin his conclusions. I'm criticising this. I do consider him to be
5 a good professional, but he went beyond the boundaries of his profession
6 in offering these opinions and comments.
7 MR. MITCHELL: Can we go to the next page, please.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript, please.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 60, line 2, what is missing is
11 that the Professor mentioned the Hodzici case, 175 --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Can Mr. Karadzic repeat what he said, it's a
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll give it to you right now so
15 that we get it correct. Hodzici 05-175. This is the case for which
16 Lawrence said that it was an evident error. So I'm criticising specific
17 aspects of work. I'm not criticising the individual. This was a
18 different person who conducted the autopsy. He produced the collective
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
21 MR. MITCHELL:
22 Q. Now, Professor, you can see recommendation number 1 of the
23 San Antonio Committee on the screen in front of you. It says:
24 "Evidence of war crimes is overwhelming at each site. A few
25 problems of administration or temporary lapses from a scientific ideal
1 could not jeopardise the overall quality of the evidence and its
2 interpretation at autopsy. Any prosecution of war crimes in Yugoslavia
3 will be on firm scientific grounds. There are literally hundreds of war
4 crime remains that were removed and interpreted by very scientifically
5 sound methods."
6 Now, you just told us, Professor, that your criticisms were aimed
7 not specifically at Dr. Haglund but the whole process, and yet this
8 recommendation number 1 doesn't get mentioned in any of your three
9 reports, does it?
10 A. It is not mentioned because I did not have this recommendation at
11 my disposal. At any rate, my understanding of it is that it is a
12 recommendation. The word says that something is being recommended to
13 somebody else, but the recommendation also states under 1:
14 "The evidence of war crimes is overwhelming at each site ..."
15 This is a conclusion; it is not a recommendation. In other
16 words, somebody has jumped into the conclusion that this has to do with
17 war crimes. And the question that I would put to the author of this
18 recommendation: Sir, when you wrote that there is evidence of war
19 crimes, did you read Dusan Janc's report, where he stated that victims
20 which perished before 1995 were brought there at a later date? And can
21 you tell us, were all the victims there the victims of war crimes or are
22 there victims who perished not as a result of the commission of a war
23 crime? Did somebody perish in combat, in armed conflict and similar --
24 Q. Professor, we can --
25 A. I can comment on this in various ways --
1 Q. Well, we can all read it for ourselves. Let me just go back to
2 it. You said it's not mentioned in your reports because you didn't have
3 this recommendation at your disposal. Your most recent report is dated
4 August 2012, isn't it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you will recall in the Popovic case in 2008, I read you this
7 exact paragraph from this document. So you were aware of it at the time
8 you wrote that August 2012 report, weren't you?
9 A. You may have read it out to me, but I don't recall it nor do I
10 have it in writing. I do accept that you read it out to me in
11 Vujadin Popovic in 2000 and whatever the year was when I was here, though
12 I do not really remember it. I'm telling you how this can be
13 interpreted --
14 Q. Well, Professor --
15 A. -- forensically speaking --
16 Q. -- maybe you can tell us how you were able to quote a number of
17 statements directly out of the San Antonio report, and yet you say you
18 didn't have the conclusion three or four pages on in the exact same
20 Professor, you don't have to answer that. You left this out
21 deliberately, didn't you?
22 A. No, absolutely not. If you'll recall, in Vujadin Popovic I wrote
23 those seven or eight bullet points that were my objections. After that,
24 the Defence for Vujadin Popovic and another team of Defence counsel
25 accessed that cite and then we all looked at it and commented on it. I
1 have nothing to add. I wrote in the report what I thought was relevant
2 for the Chamber to view the matter from both sides.
3 Q. And in your view, for the Chamber to view the matter from both
4 sides, you have to present just one side; right? That's what you're
5 doing here. You're arguing Mr. Karadzic's case for him, aren't you?
6 A. No. I'm presenting my positions which I presented before the
7 Karadzic case, before the Popovic case, and those others' methods. As a
8 forensics expert, I'm only dealing with objectively established facts.
9 The only thing I can do is interpret them and comment on them. I'm not
10 talking about numbers. Are they adequately related to location,
11 time-period, et cetera. If Mr. Christopher Lawrence argues that
12 putrefaction is solely related to the conditions in the pit and
13 indirectly through Mr. Karadzic, when answering my questions whether the
14 time of death and time of interment may also have an impact on
15 putrefaction, then he answers affirmatively, it means that in answering
16 questions that would be in favour of the accused he also provided such
17 answers. So I'm not criticising his position; I'm only saying things
18 that are relevant to one position and the other. I'm not only singling
19 out negative aspects; I'm stating positive things.
20 I did not deny the existence of ligatures or executions, but I
21 did say that I disagreed with the position that all of them were the
22 victims of executions. I disagree with the position of Janc that the
23 primary and secondary -- or rather, that the secondary graves contained
24 bodies that were in primary graves only, I disagree with that. I
25 disagree with his position that executions were conducted at several
1 sites. We have information that there were people who were subsequently
2 interred and who died before July 1995. Some fighters were killed around
3 Srebrenica and these individuals were found buried in these graves. We
4 have testimonies of protected witnesses to that effect. This is what I'm
5 discussing. Whether this plays in somebody's hand or not, I'm not
6 interested in that, I'm not going into that. I want to present to the
7 Chamber that there is such evidence or, alternatively, that there is no
8 such evidence.
9 Q. Okay. Just to finish off talking about Dr. Haglund, earlier
10 today you were talking about the comment in Dr. Haglund's Branjevo Farm
11 farm report that Mr. McCloskey facilitated the final editing of the
12 autopsy reports. And you said that you believed the legal advisor wanted
13 to skip any steps and to directly tie-in his conclusion, the conclusion
14 with what he was able to see on the ground. This is what Dr. Haglund had
15 to say in this case at transcript 23940. He said:
16 "I had to put that in there because I wanted people to be aware
17 that he didn't make changes at anything, he just went around the world to
18 see the particular pathologists. I had done particular cases, had them
19 look them over, and if there was a change made to these, pathologists
20 made the change, not McCloskey."
21 So that was in this case. Professor, Dr. Haglund is testifying,
22 as luck would have it, today in the Mladic case. And this is what he
23 said this morning about this issue:
24 "... McCloskey took ... all the writings on how -- what the
25 pathologists had done, and he went all over the world ... to see if they
1 needed to have their -- their writings changed or ... if it was the same
2 way it was. And then they would change it, and then he would go on to
3 another country and find other people, so he basically went to the -- all
4 the -- I think there were 30-some pathologists that we had from Turkey,
5 England, the United States, and all over. And ... he carried things
6 around, but Mr. McCloskey, of course, didn't change anything. It was
7 none of his business. He just took it to the pathologist."
8 So, Professor, there's no basis whatsoever for your statement
9 that the Prosecution's legal advisor wanted to skip steps and tie-in his
10 own conclusions with what he saw on the ground, is there?
11 A. That's not the case. That I cannot glean from this document.
12 What Peter McCloskey said and what Haglund testified came after what I
13 have just read out. This cannot be interpreted in any way other than
14 that Mr. McCloskey participated in editing the conclusions based on
15 autopsies. Why he did that before that, why did he go abroad, what he
16 was looking for? This can be interpreted in two ways. Was he looking
17 for pathologists who would accept his conclusions --
18 Q. Professor --
19 A. -- that all of them were alive and were then killed. This is
20 also a possible interpretation. I don't accept this.
21 Q. -- you're in the realm of pure speculation again. I just told
22 you what Dr. Haglund had to say about it. Do you accept that your claim
23 that the Prosecution's legal advisor was trying to tie-in his own
24 conclusions with what he saw on the ground is false?
25 A. Can you tell me once more when did Mr. Haglund say this? The
1 exact date.
2 Q. Mr. Haglund testified under oath before this Trial Chamber and he
3 just said the same thing this morning under oath in front of the Mladic
4 Trial Chamber.
5 A. Did he say so in the case against Vujadin Popovic, the case where
6 I stated these things for the first time? At the time,
7 Prosecutor McCloskey reacted because he was sitting there on the
8 Prosecution side, and when I said this he stood up and said that this
9 wasn't the truth. Therefore, both here and in the Mladic case - because
10 I worked in that case as well - Haglund made the comments that he made
11 and I take them as his comments only. I will not go into detail.
12 However, he said all this after my quoting of his report and in the quote
13 that I relayed, none of what he said was contained. Here, however, you
14 have exactly what he said.
15 Q. Yes, I think it's very clear what the -- what Dr. Haglund's
16 report says. One final thing before the break. Do you recall earlier
17 this morning we were looking at point 12 of Dr. Lawrence's Cancari Road 3
18 report, talking about post-mortem --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- injuries that tended to obscure peri mortem ones? Well, in
21 your big report, 1D25489 --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- this is at page 212 in the English, you say that
24 Dr. Lawrence's statement is "absolutely arbitrary if not actually
25 malicious." Now, Professor, "malicious" is a very strong word. You're
1 basically calling Dr. Lawrence deliberately dishonest, aren't you?
2 A. What is the opinion you're referring to? I'm sorry.
3 MR. MITCHELL: If we can have the document in e-court, it's
4 1D2589 [sic], page 212 in the English.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the page in Serbian,
7 MR. MITCHELL: I believe it's 197.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you referring to
9 Cancari Road 3, Prosecutor Mitchell?
10 MR. MITCHELL:
11 Q. Yes. And you say that Dr. Lawrence's statement, the post-mortem
12 injuries tended to obscure peri mortem ones, was "absolutely arbitrary if
13 not actually malicious."
14 A. I stand by what I said. If you have no evidence of the sequence
15 in which injuries were inflicted, if you have no evidence of an injury
16 having been inflicted at a later date, if you have no evidence of
17 something having been done intentionally and yet you do write all of
18 these things, then the only thing I can say is that it was done
19 malevolently. I simply cannot interpret it otherwise. Why would
20 somebody write that this was done intentionally?
21 Q. Professor, Professor --
22 A. -- the entire body of your legal -- yes, I don't want to comment.
23 All right.
24 Q. The whole point it was a translation error. It didn't say it was
25 done intentionally. That was cleared up this morning, remember? It
1 doesn't say that in the original English.
2 A. Regardless, listen to me carefully. If we omit the word
3 "intentionally" and say that injuries were inflicted post-mortem so as to
4 obscure the injuries inflicted ante-mortem, it's sheer nonsense because
5 there is no evidence to support it. And let's not even talk about
7 Q. So that's -- that's your testimony --
8 A. Professionally speaking, it's unacceptable. Yes, from the
9 position of the profession it's unacceptable. I had at my disposal a
10 translation which said "intentionally inflicted." What I'm saying now,
11 that even if we disregard the translation error, the second part of the
12 sentence is completely unacceptable from the point of view of the
14 Q. So you would still say Dr. Lawrence's comment that post-mortem
15 injuries tended to obscure perimortem injuries, regardless of whether
16 that's done intentionally or not, Dr. Lawrence was being arbitrary or
17 possibly even malicious when he said that --
18 THE ACCUSED: Asked and answered.
19 MR. MITCHELL:
20 Q. -- you're standing by that?
21 MR. MITCHELL: That's not a proper objection for
23 JUDGE KWON: Please answer the question.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Me?
25 MR. MITCHELL:
1 Q. If you, Professor --
2 A. What?
3 Q. I asked you: Is it still your position that Dr. Lawrence's
4 comment that post-mortem injuries tended to obscure perimortem injuries,
5 regardless of whether it's intentional or not, that's arbitrary if not
6 actually malicious, you stand by that comment?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE KWON: Where do we see that passage on this page?
9 MR. MITCHELL: Page 212 in the English, Mr. President. It's in
10 the second-bottom full paragraph, the last sentence.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Shall we take a break?
12 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE KWON: There are two matters I'd like to deal with before
14 we have a lunch break, but in the meantime, Professor Dunjic, you may
15 excuse yourself. We'll resume at 1.30.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 JUDGE KWON: First the Chamber will issue an oral ruling on the
18 Prosecution's motion to augment Exhibit P1620 and P1621 filed yesterday,
19 on 22nd July 2013. In the motion, the Prosecution seeks to augment the
20 expert report of Witness Patrick Van der Weijden, admitted under seal as
21 P1620 and publicly as P1621, with four photographs which are of
22 "significant higher quality" than those currently contained in the
24 Also on the 22nd July 2013, the accused informed the Prosecution
25 and the Chamber via e-mail that he does not oppose the motion.
1 The Chamber has reviewed the new photographs along with the
2 expert report and is satisfied that the four photographs tendered in the
3 motion shall be added to P1620 and P1621 to replace the old photographs.
4 Second, the Chamber has noted the Defence's latest working
5 calendar which Mr. Robinson kindly circulated to the Prosecution and the
6 Chamber's legal staff yesterday, with the proviso that this calendar
7 pertained to "a trial on Counts 2 to 11."
8 The Chamber recalls that on the 11th of July, 2013, the
9 Appeals Chamber issued its judgement on the Prosecution's motion against
10 the Chamber's Rule 98 bis oral ruling on Count 1 -- I should have said
11 Prosecution's appeal. On the 16th of July the accused filed before this
12 Chamber a motion to sever Count 1, and on the 22nd of July, he filed a
13 motion for clarification of the judgement before the Appeals Chamber.
14 The Chamber is concerned about Mr. Robinson's comment that the
15 Defence's working calendar, which covers a number of months and takes us
16 to the end of the Defence case, pertains to Counts 2 to 11 only. At this
17 stage, while making no comment on the merits of the accused's motions
18 that are still pending before the Appeals Chamber and before this
19 Chamber, but simply bearing this mind that all efforts should be made to
20 ensure that the expeditiousness of these proceedings is maintained, the
21 Chamber is of the view that the Defence should also be prepared for the
22 eventuality that in ruling on the motion for clarification, the Appeals
23 Chamber may decide that its judgement was clear that Count 1 is
24 reinstated and also for the possibility that this Chamber may dismiss his
25 motion for severance hereinafter.
1 This means that for witnesses who are scheduled to testify and
2 who may be relevant to Count 1, and the Chamber has noted a few in the
3 working calendar provided, the Chamber expects the Defence to examine
4 them on Count 1 if it so wishes, even if by that time the Appeals Chamber
5 has not ruled on the motion for clarification.
6 We'll resume at 1.30.
7 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.44 p.m.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 --- On resuming at 1.33 p.m.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Mitchell, please continue.
11 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Professor, we can agree that an expert witness, credible expert
13 witness, should be objective; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And impartial?
16 A. Impartial, yes.
17 Q. And that the expert should exercise his or her independent
18 professional judgement in relation to the subject matter of their report?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And give clear references for all facts on which your opinion is
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Professor, I want to ask you about the objectivity and
24 impartiality of just three examples of conclusions in your report. The
25 first one, if we can go to your August 2012 report.
1 MR. MITCHELL: That's 1D25488, page 19 in the English, page 17 in
2 the B/C/S.
3 Q. And this is number 6, "blindfolds" and personal effects found.
4 And you say:
5 "The presence of these 'blindfolds'" --
6 A. Just one moment, please. Just let me find it.
7 I apologise. Please go ahead.
8 Q. We can see here you say:
9 "The presence of these 'blindfolds' may be interpreted in several
10 ways ..."
11 And then you list three points. And I want to ask you about each
12 of these three points. First of all, you say:
13 "Many BH Army soldiers (including the 'Mujahedin') wore headbands
14 to distinguish themselves from the other soldiers and to signify that
15 they belonged to a particular unit."
16 We just agreed less than five minutes ago that there should be
17 clear references for all the facts on which your opinion is based,
18 Professor. There's no reference for this statement of fact, is there?
19 A. This is a factual statement and I think that you are familiar
20 with this factual statement because Mr. Karadzic presented that at that
21 point in time when your experts were being heard, last occasion being one
22 which I was present at, and I saw that there. This is a document that we
23 are both familiar with, so that I simply think that I didn't have any
24 need in an additional report to refer to a particular reference number.
25 This is something that I know. I don't even need to use a different
1 term, and that is that in the presence of foreigners in the -- this is
2 something that I know of from newspapers, the presence of foreigners in
3 the B&H army, from the time that I was living in the area of the former
5 Q. Right. But you got this specific factual statement, let me be
6 absolutely clear, you got this from Dr. Karadzic when he said it during
7 the testimony of one of the Prosecution experts; is that what you're
9 A. Not only did he say it, he showed film footage where we saw that.
10 I cannot remember precisely now when that was --
11 Q. Well, maybe you recall that --
12 A. -- just one second --
13 Q. -- that video that Dr. Karadzic showed wasn't admitted into
14 evidence because he couldn't show the provenance of that video. You
15 remember that?
16 A. Please believe me when I say that I don't know, but if that is
17 so, then that is so. We talked about that on the 8th of December, 2011,
18 when Mr. Lawrence was testifying --
19 Q. Yes, we're going to come to that, Professor --
20 A. -- blindfolds --
21 Q. The second bullet point you say -- so you've made the statement
22 of fact. Second bullet point is your opinion where you say:
23 "... after the soft tissue has putrefied, these bands would have
24 'slipped' over the eyes and face ..."
25 Now, this opinion wasn't in any of the three reports that you did
1 for the Popovic case in 2008 and 2009; correct?
2 A. No -- well, actually, you are correct. I did not say that
3 anywhere. Now in this augmented report, I wrote that there, yes.
4 Q. And when you testified before the Popovic Trial Chamber twice,
5 you didn't suggest this theory that blindfolds could actually be
6 headbands which slipped down after the soft tissue putrefied, you didn't
7 suggest that in your Popovic testimony either, did you?
8 A. To tell you the truth, I don't recall. If I did not mention it,
9 that does not mean that I did not think it, just that I didn't mention
10 it, I didn't write it down. Simply no one paid attention to that in the
11 same way they did not pay attention to ligatures, whether they were
12 firmly fixed to the arms or not, whether the arms were tied in the front
13 or in the back. You understand? You just simply accept that in a
14 certain way. But when I went into an analysis, when I had a direct
15 question from Dr. Karadzic about these blindfolds and how they can be
16 preserved, then I found a document on Lazete 1 and I could see how those
17 strips looked, what they looked like, what the composition was like, and
18 then in thinking, I came to these things which were presented but which
19 were not admitted as a document in this case. I came to that conclusion,
20 and that is why I did not introduce that or mention it in the
21 Vujadin Popovic case.
22 MR. MITCHELL: Can we have a look at 1D25180.
23 Q. Professor, this is your August 2009 report which you did for this
25 MR. MITCHELL: If we can go to page 57 in the English and the
2 Q. And, Professor, you'll agree with me that this theory about
3 blindfolds being headbands isn't mentioned anywhere in this report
4 either, is it?
5 We'll come to the list of questions we're looking at here in a
6 minute. I'm just asking you generally, the theory about blindfolds being
7 headbands, it's not in this report?
8 A. Very well.
9 Q. Okay. Well, what we're seeing here on page 57 is a list of
10 questions that you drafted for Dr. Karadzic to ask. And you'll see that
11 there's nothing in there --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- about blindfolds possibly being headbands either. So in
14 August 2009, this hasn't occurred to you; right?
15 A. No.
16 Q. As in "no," it hasn't occurred to you?
17 A. Not that it didn't occur to me, but I did not elaborate in that
18 sense on that fact which was constantly being repeated. But I did after
19 the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses here, your witnesses, expert
20 witnesses, and after the film footage was shown by Dr. Karadzic, and
21 after I got interested in the whole question about who is wearing what
22 kind of bands and so on, then I participated in the writing of this
23 because these are additional questions that were given to me by
24 Dr. Karadzic and I answered them, and that is what the title is of this
1 Q. Let's be very clear. You wrote three reports for the Popovic
2 case. You testified twice in the Popovic case. And then you wrote a
3 fourth report in August 2009, in each of them specifically talking about
4 the blindfolds, and this theory didn't appear in any of them; right?
5 A. I noted facts that were available to me. Blindfolds referred to
6 by the Investigator Manning. I just noted the fact without going into an
7 explanation of the blindfolds, in the same way that I did not go into any
8 explanations about ligatures on the arms and legs. Had I been put that
9 question and had a special analysis on that been necessary, then I would
10 have done that work and I would have looked at the annexes B, C, in order
11 to acquaint myself with that material. I did not do that up until this
12 report of last year because that was when a specific question was put to
13 me regarding those blinds -- blindfolds. And that was when I then began
14 to think about it and to perceive the significance and the way all of
15 that was. Somebody who had more information about that, as Mr. Karadzic
16 did, about who is wearing what in which way -- well, I'm a civilian, I
17 did not participate in any war. So I did not know what kind of things
18 were being worn. So it's logical that I had to think about that and go
19 into the matter in more detail without any further conclusions.
20 Q. The 8th of December, 2011, you were sitting in court during
21 Dr. Lawrence's evidence?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. And you saw the video that Mr. Karadzic played; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you heard Mr. Karadzic explain that video to the Judges and
2 "Dr. Lawrence confirmed to us that he had not been made aware of
3 our customs of war or of this custom of the Islamic fighters wearing
4 headbands. That is one thing. Secondly, that fully coincides with the
5 findings of such objects in the mass graves."
6 So on the day that Dr. Lawrence testified, on the 8th of
7 December, 2011, you became fully aware of Mr. Karadzic's case theory on
8 what these blindfolds are; correct? So --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- then when you say for the first time ever nine months later
11 you include this theory in your report in August 2012; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Well, Professor, were you specifically asked to include this
14 theory in your report of August 2012 to try and give it an air of
15 respectability, or did you decide all by yourself to help Dr. Karadzic
16 out by putting it in there after you heard him suggest it to Dr. Lawrence
17 on the 8th of December, 2011?
18 A. Everything that I wrote in my second report on the
19 26th of August, 2012, I also wrote the reasons why I did that. The
20 second report is written at the request of Mr. Karadzic, who specifically
21 put certain questions to me and that is written down. And so one of the
22 questions was question 6, I quote, blinds and found personal items, and
23 then since certain things are referred to here, I looked at what
24 Mr. Lawrence Hamilton said on the -- when he testified on the 8th. And
25 then I linked that report that you referred to, and to me that had a
1 completely different connotation in relation to what I was doing before
2 because I did not pay attention to the blindfolds. I accepted blindfolds
3 as a fact, that's what was said, a blindfold. But then when I began to
4 analyse what Mr. Karadzic said and what was written in the reports, what
5 was objectively possible, that the blindfolds could have a certain
6 different meaning, as we heard that they did have a different meaning, I
7 had to take that probability or that possibility into account and that is
8 why I wrote it down; I'm not concealing that. I did not think about that
9 at all. I didn't think about it before. Had I thought about that
10 before, I would have elaborated more on that matter also in the
11 Vujadin Popovic case.
12 In the document, for example, on Lazete 01 - doesn't matter now -
13 finding a strip of fabric in the pocket of the clothing. So it was seen
14 in some other cases and then in this case it was found in a pocket of an
15 item of clothing. How would you interpret that? I had to refer to
16 that --
17 Q. We'll get to that --
18 A. -- because I became interested and I started to --
19 Q. -- particular blindfold in one moment. Maybe I can be a little
20 bit clearer for you. Professor, what I'm suggesting is this section of
21 your report isn't an expert analysis at all. It's you simply repeating
22 the Defence case theory, isn't it?
23 A. I would not agree with that. I think that this is an expert
24 report, an expert analysis. I, as a forensics expert, am answering
25 questions that are put to me. As for whose case that is, that is
1 something that I am not dealing with.
2 Q. Let's talk about the specific individual who you mention in the
3 third paragraph or the third bullet point. Where you say:
4 "The fact that one strip was found in the pocket of the
5 individual's clothes, LZ-01659-2, bright pink fabric similar to the other
6 blindfolds, imposes the conclusion that this person wanted somehow to
7 hide their identity of belonging to a unit."
8 Now, that conclusion that somebody wants to hide their identity
9 of belonging to a unit has got nothing whatsoever to do with your
10 expertise as a pathologist, does it?
11 A. In a way, you are right. I cited the report, I cited this
12 document, this is the source document, where all the blindfolds are
13 referred to in annex D, analysing the blindfolds where they were found.
14 Here it says only head. Here it says blindfold in the grave; and here it
15 says in the pocket. Then I was thinking, as a forensics person, why
16 somebody would keep that same kind of strip that was found on a corpse
17 around the head in -- would keep it in their pocket. So I agree that
18 perhaps I stepped out of the domain of the forensics profession and
19 provided a kind of explanation or an assumption as to why something like
20 that was done. I do grant you that, in that sense. Just as Christopher
21 Lawrence Hamilton, your expert in certain cases gives free
22 interpretations about the origin of some injuries for which he does not
23 have objective proof. I have objective proof in the pocket, evidence
24 found. In his case, Mr. Reference to Hodzic, he said that there were
25 perforating wounds on the soft tissue and that could --
1 Q. Let's -- Professor, let's stay on --
2 A. -- possibly be the cause of death and there is no soft tissue, so
3 that is in the same -- in the same --
4 Q. Let's stay on point. We're talking about this individual and
5 this blindfold. Okay? Now, when you came up with this theory about the
6 blindfold after hearing Dr. Karadzic say it in court one day, did you
7 look at any witness statements that talked about the blindfolding of
8 prisoners at the Orahovac school, which is associated with the Lazete 1
9 grave? Did you look at any witness statements?
10 A. No. Excuse me, but other than statements that are referred to, I
11 did not read any other statements. What is cited in my report, but other
12 than that I did not have the opportunity.
13 Q. Well, let me read you two very short bits of evidence from this
14 case from two survivors of the Orahovac executions. This is from
15 Witness KDZ064, whose evidence is P769 in this case. And he said,
16 talking about in the Orahovac school:
17 [As read] "When the order came, they brought a bag of rags or
18 strips of cloth that were maybe some 50 centimetres wide -- 5 centimetres
19 wide, or rather, 15 centimetres wide and they asked prisoners to put
20 these blindfolds on each other."
21 So you haven't heard that statement before, about the Bosnian
22 Serb soldiers bringing --
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. Well, this is KDZ039, who's another survivor of the
25 Orahovac executions, who said in his evidence, which is P3940:
1 "When we were supposed to go out, two soldiers brought this kind
2 of thing, some kind of cloth cut into pieces and they put it by the
3 entrance door and they said to these two men, 'Now, who is going to be
4 the two men tying people's eyes, and then you will have water to drink,'
5 and then two of our men volunteered." Then he goes on: "They would get
6 blindfolded, they would drink water, and then we would leave the hall."
7 So you hadn't consulted any eyewitness testimony when you
8 included this theory in your August 2012 report for the first time;
10 A. No.
11 MR. MITCHELL: Okay, if we could have 65 ter 25433 in e-court.
12 Q. And while this is coming up, Professor, before you concluded that
13 this individual with the strip of cloth in his pocket was trying to hide
14 the fact that he was in a unit, did you look at his autopsy report?
15 I don't think there's a translation, unfortunately, so I'll have
16 to read the relevant section to you, Professor.
17 MR. MITCHELL: If we can go to page 26 of the autopsy report.
18 Q. Can you just briefly explain to us, Professor, what a fluoroscope
19 is? It's a type of x-ray, isn't it?
20 A. Yes. That's a type of x-ray done on certain parts of the body.
21 This is one such image, the image of I don't know what. I believe that
22 this is somewhere in the chest, I assume, and the shadow, the darker
23 shadow with sharp edges looks like a projectile trace, or rather, a
24 segment, a part of a projectile embedded in the chest.
25 MR. MITCHELL: Could we go to the next page, please.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a projectile.
2 MR. MITCHELL:
3 Q. Right.
4 A. It's a rifle projectile.
5 Q. Okay. If we can go back to page 1, you will see, Professor, that
6 the cause of death for this individual is a gun-shot injury to the head
7 and trunk. Now, do you agree with that conclusion, Professor?
8 A. Conditionally speaking, that would mean that. The cause of death
9 may have been a gun-shot wound or the injury of the head and chest on a
10 condition that the injuries were inflicted ante-mortem. However, there's
11 no proof of that in the autopsy report --
12 Q. Well, it says -- Professor --
13 A. Just a moment, give me a moment.
14 Q. It says at the top:
15 "A complete and intact body, well preserved, with the skin and
16 soft tissue surviving in all areas and also all of the internal organs."
17 A body in that state of preservation, you would surely be able to
18 tell what the cause of death was; right?
19 A. I apologise. When was the autopsy carried out, can you tell?
20 Q. The 22nd of August, 2000 --
21 A. The 30th of August, 2000 -- or rather, the 22nd August, 2000, and
22 now I would like you to display the description of putrefaction changes
23 to see whether that was indeed the case or should we just accept this at
24 face value. I would like to ask for the proof that the person is aged
25 between 30 and 70. I would like to ask for the proof that the person was
1 between 174 and 179 centimetres tall. There has to be proof in the
2 autopsy report and then I would be able to reply to you and tell you that
3 everything is correct. Because if somebody died in 1995 with a
4 projectile in their head and in the trunk or in the chest because they
5 were wounded at the time, how is it possible five years later for the
6 soft tissues to be preserved without any putrefaction changes? As a
7 forensic expert, I have never seen any such thing. It may be preserved,
8 there may be signs of putrefaction, yes, it may be saponified and altered
9 in many different ways, yes, that may be the case. Are you following
10 me --
11 Q. I'm following you, Professor.
12 A. -- so the cause of death is --
13 Q. Let's just move on briefly. The description here says that this
14 man had three bullet-holes in the back of his chest and two exit defects
15 at the front of his chest. So that means he was shot in the back; right?
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. Okay --
18 JUDGE KWON: I think we have some pictures of this body?
19 MR. MITCHELL: Yes, we're about to --
20 JUDGE KWON: Page 22 --
21 MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
22 Q. We can go to page 23, Professor, and the summary says:
23 "This man had a blindfold around his head made from a strip of
24 pink cloth knotted at the back."
25 So you'd agree that this individual actually was executed because
1 he's wearing a blindfold; correct?
2 A. I wouldn't be able to fully agree before I reviewed everything
3 else if this is the same body that we're talking about. First of all,
4 there's putrefaction visible here. Secondly, this blindfold across the
5 forehead may correspond to a blindfold although it is around the
6 forehead. And the injuries that were identified in the chest and in the
7 head may have happened at any moment and it cannot be excluded that they
8 were inflicted in a moment of execution had the person indeed been
9 executed. This is the way I'm thinking at this moment --
10 Q. Right. So your --
11 A. -- based on these conclusions.
12 Q. So your expert opinion, Professor, is that this individual who
13 was shot in the back with a blindfold on - and we saw the bullets in his
14 chest and pelvis - you can't tell what the cause of death was? That's
15 your expert opinion? We're going to come to the strip of cloth in the
16 pocket in a minute.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So "yes," you can't tell what the cause of death is?
19 A. Yes. I can only assume what the exact cause of death was. One
20 can assume that it may have been related to the injuries in the head and
21 chest regions.
22 Q. Okay. Well, I read you two bits of evidence, the Bosnian Serb
23 soldiers brought a bag of rags or strips of cloth to the Orahovac school
24 and Muslim prisoners used that material to blindfold each other before
25 they were executed. So, Professor, do you think it's plausible that this
1 individual was wearing a blindfold taken from a bag of rags brought to
2 the Orahovac school by Bosnian Serb soldiers that is made of identical
3 material as an Islamic headband that was in his pocket at the time that
4 he was shot? Being do you think that's a plausible explanation, that the
5 bag of rags for the blindfolds and the Islamic headband in his pocket
6 just happened to be the exact same material?
7 A. I don't know. It's really not up to me to be the judge of that,
8 whether that's just a coincidence or not. I simply cannot give you any
9 comment. It may well be the case, but it doesn't have to be. It doesn't
10 have to say that the materials are the same, that they're identical.
11 There is a detailed description of the colours of those headbands and the
12 appearance --
13 Q. Well, it says in the autopsy report - if we go back to page 1 -
14 that they're identical. So, Professor, let me suggest this to you:
15 Isn't the most plausible explanation for what happened was that this
16 prisoner was one of the ones I mentioned earlier who was blindfolding
17 other prisoners and who picked up a pile of strips of cloth out of that
18 bag, stuck them in his pocket and was blindfolding other prisoners; and
19 when it came his turn, there's one strip left in his pocket. Isn't that
20 the most obvious explanation, Professor, rather than the Islamic
22 A. It is very possible. It is very possible. That theory is quite
23 plausible. I cannot reject it, of course I can't.
24 Q. Okay.
25 MR. MITCHELL: If we can have 65 ter 1D25488 in e-court.
1 Q. Professor, this is your August 2012 report again.
2 MR. MITCHELL: If we can have page 26 in English, 22 in the
4 Q. I'd like to draw your attention to your statement that if bodies
5 are found in civilian clothes, it does not necessarily mean that they
6 were civilians.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Many civilians in this period were armed and active in
9 Territorial Defence in accordance with the doctrine of the former SFRY.
10 You can see that section?
11 A. Yes, yes, that's correct.
12 Q. And again, this is a statement of fact without any citation;
14 A. Yes, this is a factual statement. I lived there. I was a member
15 of the civilian protection myself, I was a civilian. As for the military
16 doctrine of the SFRY - and mind you, I had served in the army - it was
17 the military doctrine to prepare civilians for war and to provide them
18 with certain weaponry, perhaps not uniforms. I know it because I am a
19 witness of that time. Anybody who resided in the former republics of
20 Yugoslavia can confirm that. Being members of the Territorial Defence,
21 everybody had to be there, we had to do all sorts of things, learn all
22 sorts of things as members of the Territorial Defence.
23 Q. Professor, you did some autopsies in Kosovo in 1998 of
24 individuals killed by the KLA at Racak; is that correct?
25 A. I believe that you misspoke. Could you please be more precise.
1 I performed autopsies in Kosovo of the people who were killed by the KLA?
2 No, no --
3 Q. I did misstate --
4 A. -- I performed autopsies of persons who were members of the KLA
5 and who rebelled against the legitimate military and police forces of the
6 then-Republic of Serbia, or rather, the SRY. I did perform those
7 autopsies and that was what you refer to as Racak. There were 40 bodies
8 all together and I testified about that here at the Tribunal. I was a
9 team member together with Helena Ranta and two forensic experts from
11 Q. I apologise, Professor, I was actually referring to the
12 39 individuals who were killed near Lake Radonjic in 1998.
13 A. Oh, that's something entirely different. That was in the
14 Haradinaj case. I did work there. I was the one who did those autopsies
15 as well.
16 Q. The victims in that case were wearing civilian clothes, weren't
18 A. Yes.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Whenever is a convenient moment, I
20 would like to correct something in the transcript.
21 JUDGE KWON: Shall we do it now then.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On page 86, line 3, it seems that
23 the Professor stated that the theory is quite plausible. Does that mean
24 desirable? He said that it was possible.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, possible or credible.
1 JUDGE KWON: Is that it?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Very possible, not
4 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure whether that makes much difference.
5 Thank you, in any event.
6 Shall we continue, Mr. Mitchell.
7 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE KWON: By the way, are you not tendering the autopsy report
9 we saw?
10 MR. MITCHELL: I would like to. I apologise, I missed it. That
11 was --
12 JUDGE KWON: 25433.
13 MR. MITCHELL: Correct. Thank you, Mr. President.
14 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, no objection with respect to
15 those pages that were used.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit it.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6461, Your Honours.
18 MR. MITCHELL:
19 Q. Professor, the 39 people who were killed at Lake Radonjic were
20 people of Serb and Albanian ethnicities who were thought to have been
21 killed by the KLA; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Well, this is what you said about the significance of
24 civilian clothes in that instance. This is a statement you gave in
25 June -- November 2001, where you say --
1 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, is this in e-court where we could
2 follow this?
3 MR. MITCHELL: Yeah, it's 65 ter 25380, it's page 57.
4 Q. There's just one very simple quote, Professor, where you say --
5 you're talking about the 39 cases and you say:
6 "All the above-mentioned bodies were in civilian everyday
7 clothing which would possibly indicate they had been dragged from their
8 homes or work-places."
9 So in that case, where the KLA were the perpetrators and there
10 were Serbs among the victims, civilian clothing meant they were possibly
11 dragged from their homes; right?
12 A. Yes, but let me hear your next question so as to be able to
13 expand on my answer. Tell me what you have in mind.
14 Q. Well, my next question is: You've gone out of your way in your
15 report in this case to argue that victims dressed in civilian clothes
16 could still be soldiers. So the significance of civilian clothes to you,
17 Professor, appears to depend on the identity of the perpetrator and of
18 the victim; right?
19 A. No, no, no. Namely, we're discussing Mr. Karadzic's case and I
20 said -- in view of some allegations of the fact that people were in
21 civilian clothes, I said that civilian clothing doesn't mean that people
22 wearing it are not soldiers. According to the prevalent doctrine and
23 according to what we knew in 1991 and 1992 when the war started in my
24 country. I know that.
25 What you are talking about now, the Kosovo case, where I said
1 that the people were civilians has nothing to do with that. I performed
2 those autopsies with my team and I did the investigation. I performed
3 the investigation that you normally do at the location, around the
4 location, together with the investigative judge. That's how things are
5 done in my country. And finally, we carried out exhumations of
6 post-mortems and identifications. Therefore, for all the 39 victims, we
7 knew who they were, where they had been dragged from - they were dragged
8 from their houses and apartments. There were two sisters, one was 70,
9 the other was 75 years old, they were in civilian clothes. Of course
10 they were not soldiers. Just like the postman who had been killed. He
11 was a postman, he wore a uniform, he was among the first ones to be
12 killed. There were no armed formations there, there were no Serbian
13 armed formations in Kosovo. On the other hand, the Albanian or armed
14 formations, the KLA, they didn't have uniforms at first, they started
15 wearing them only later. This is just for your information. So I'm not
16 making any distinction in terms of the ethnic structure. I'm just
17 drawing conclusions based on what I had an opportunity to see, to
18 investigate, and to conclude.
19 So if you are asking me whether a 70-year-old woman could be a
20 soldier, I would say it doesn't make sense. If you asked me the same
21 thing about a 35-year-old man who was found near Kravica, I will tell you
22 it is possible because I know what was happening in Bosnia.
23 This is the information that your experts also had from
24 newspapers. I lived in Belgrade and those things were happening 200 or
25 300 kilometres away from Belgrade. Therefore ...
1 Q. Okay. But you thought it was important to make sure the
2 Trial Chamber knew in this case that civilian clothing didn't necessarily
3 mean they were civilians. You thought it was important for them to know
5 A. That's what I believe because I respect this Tribunal, I respect
6 the Prosecution, and I want them to have all the information before them
7 to be able to render the right judgement.
8 There was a woman who testified that a man was killed by a shell,
9 a shell fell in front of his house, he was there and he was also counted
10 as a victim of the Srebrenica genocide. I'm not denying the fact that he
11 was a civilian and that he was among those victims who were civilians.
12 I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that among those "civilians" was a
13 large number of people.
14 Your protected witnesses, the witnesses whom I mentioned, they
15 were all in civilian clothes and they had to join the 281, 20 -- 102nd or
16 3rd or whatever brigade or division or whatever they were called in
17 Srebrenica. For example, if somebody forced me to join a brigade, I
18 would still be wearing civilian clothes but I would become a soldier.
19 But to show due respect towards you and the Tribunal, I had to say that.
20 I am saying that not only civilians were killed as civilians nor were
21 soldiers killed as soldiers. This is what I'm claiming and this is the
22 only reason why I stated that.
23 MR. MITCHELL: If we can go back to 65 ter 1D25488, page 18 in
24 the English and 16 in the B/C/S.
25 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, before we do that I would ask that
1 this document that was just referred to, this report concerning the --
2 Kosovo be admitted because I think it shows the sex of the victims that
3 were examined by Dr. Dunjic and corroborates his answer. So I think as
4 long as it's been referred and shown, it ought to be admitted.
5 JUDGE KWON: I don't see any difficulty with it, Mr. Mitchell.
6 Page, what, 57?
7 MR. MITCHELL: No objection.
8 MR. ROBINSON: Actually, I think we would like to have this whole
9 report admitted because you have to look at different individuals to see
10 that several of them are women.
11 JUDGE KWON: I will leave it to Mr. Karadzic. If he's interested
12 in it, then he can lead that evidence.
13 Shall we continue then.
14 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 1D25488. Page 18 in the English and 16 in the B/C/S.
16 Q. Professor, on this page you suggest that there are two
17 explanations why some of the individuals in Srebrenica-related graves
18 were wearing winter clothing. The first suggestion is that they were
19 most probably killed in winter before or much later than the fall of
20 Srebrenica in July of 1995; or that the time of death at one site differs
21 and burials were carried out on several occasions. You can see those two
22 conclusions in your report; correct?
23 A. That's that, yes. I saw your exhibits showing winter clothes
24 when you heard Professor Lawrence, if I'm not mistaken, I don't know what
25 the exhibit number is. Therefore, what I included in my report is what I
1 claimed then and what I still claim. Winter clothes worn in summer may
2 be interpreted in a certain way. Within the facts adjudicated so far and
3 especially what was said by Dusan Janc about subsequent burials at
4 different times and the different times of death, about the fact that
5 victims were found in many localities that had been killed in 1993 and
6 1994, it is absolutely plausible to conclude that it was winter when they
7 were killed and not the hot July of 1995. It is a logical conclusion.
8 There is no tendentiousness there. This just corroborates the
9 putrification and the times of death that I've already discussed.
10 Q. Let me stop you there, Professor. You've given two explanations.
11 The third explanation is that these people were actually wearing winter
12 clothes in July 1995 when they left Srebrenica, right? That's the third
13 explanation? And perhaps I can assist you by reminding you of your
14 testimony in the Popovic case at transcript 27876 in that case, where you
16 "I am aware that these people were outdoors, that it was war, and
17 that it was quite possible for these people to wear winter clothes even
18 in the summer."
19 So you know about this third explanation, you just didn't include
20 it in your report; right?
21 A. That's what I said, that third possibility. Therefore, in
22 addition to that one, there are these two others.
23 MR. MITCHELL: Can we have Prosecution Exhibit 4909, page 10 --
24 sorry, page 2 in e-court.
25 Q. What you're going to see, Professor, is a still image from
1 footage taken in Potocari on the 13th of July, 1995. And you can see
2 there, can't you, that a number of the men are wearing sweaters, jackets,
3 and hats on their head; right?
4 A. If you may -- yes, that's what I wanted. These are not winter
6 Q. These are not winter clothes? A woollen jumper, a jacket --
7 A. It's a thin jacket. It's a thin jumper. This is a leather
8 jacket. This is a suit jacket the other person is wearing. This is not
9 winter clothes. I don't know if somebody may wear clothes like this
10 during winter, but what you imply under that is woollen jumpers, woollen
11 trousers, woollen socks. This is typical of our people that they would
12 have woollen, knitted socks, then underclothes, two or three pairs of
13 underclothes underneath trousers, and then of course thick jackets and
14 coats. That's what you wear in winter.
15 Q. So in your view, wearing multiple layers of clothes is a definite
16 sign that it was cold; that's what you're saying?
17 A. Yes. It is the custom in winter or cold spells, let's say, in
18 late autumn, winter, early spring, whenever one spends a lot of time
19 outdoors and similar.
20 Q. Well, I referred earlier to the autopsy reports of the 40 Kosovo
21 Albanians killed at Racak, that the alleged perpetrators in that case
22 were the Serbian police, correct, the Serbian MUP?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you were told when you went to do those 40 autopsies that the
25 victims may well be KLA terrorists; right?
1 A. No, they didn't tell us that. They only told us that the persons
2 killed were Albanians who had previously killed two policemen and that
3 they were about to go and arrest these Albanians who were in civilian
4 clothes. Now, if you asked me about the civilian clothes that they wore,
5 I can tell you right away that they all had civilian clothes. However,
6 beneath these civilian clothes, these people who lived outdoors had long
7 johns and --
8 Q. Let me stop you there --
9 A. -- and boots and they all had identical long johns of the type
10 that the military wear --
11 MR. MITCHELL: Can we have 65 ter 25381 in e-court, page 4.
12 Q. And, Professor, this is a statement you gave on the 29th and
13 30th of November, 2001. Do you recognise your signature down at the
14 bottom of the page?
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. Okay --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- well, this is what you say on that page:
19 "On the afternoon of the 19th of January, 1999, I commenced the
20 autopsies after being briefed by the investigating judge,
21 Danica Marinkovic. She told us that we were doing autopsies on KLA
22 terrorists, that they had killed policemen ..."
23 So you were told that these people on whom you were doing
24 autopsies were KLA terrorists; right? This is your statement?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Well, we see in this statement your view in this case, in
2 the case of the KLA terrorists, that the extra layers of clothing had
3 nothing to do with the cold even though you actually say it was cold at
4 the time. And you say:
5 "The long underpants and trousers seemed strange to me and
6 nothing to do with the cold, but if you take off one layer of clothing
7 then you think you see a different person. Even though it was cold at
8 the time, I find that the extra layers of trousers were strange and in my
9 opinion had nothing to do with the weather."
10 So in the Racak case where it actually was cold, winter clothing
11 has nothing to do with the cold; but in Srebrenica, winter clothing can
12 only mean cold? Professor, you've completely changed your position in
13 these cases to support the position that's most favourable to the
14 perpetrators; right?
15 A. That's not right. Can you please find that reference for me
16 where I said that it had nothing to do with the cold? Now, the point of
17 the matter with Racak is that the civilians had military long johns on
18 them, all of which were procured from the same supply, as well as boots.
19 And one could tell by that that they spent time outdoors. They were all
20 in civilian clothes while, in fact, they were KLA members. This is what
21 I'm saying.
22 Please do not put things in my mouth that aren't true. And I
23 said this in very precise terms in my statement in that case as well.
24 These were people who had two or three layers of long johns and trousers
25 to be able to withstand the cold. However, what matters is that they
1 wanted to pass themselves off as civilians and that they were being
2 supplied, from abroad or from wherever, with long johns, with these
3 padded boots, et cetera. It's a completely different issue compared to
4 this one where people in Srebrenica were recovered with as many layers of
6 The conclusion that I draw on that basis is that these are not
7 only civilians that we are dealing with because wearing a uniform is not
8 the only hallmark of one's membership of the army. People in Bosnia were
9 also compelled to join certain military units.
10 I only commented on the position expressed by John Clark that not
11 everyone can be tied in with a war conflict and that they were all
12 civilians. But they were not all civilians because Helena Ranta, when
13 she worked on the Racak case together with me, she said, "They are all
14 civilians." And I told her, "Ms. Ranta, to you they may be all
15 civilians, however, according to what they were doing they were not. But
16 let's establish our finding and the finding is the one that will be
17 judged by a panel of judges as to its credibility."
18 If gunpowder residue is found on the hands of a victim, as was in
19 the case in Racak, what does that mean? The person is a victim who
20 obviously opened fire previously while wearing civilian clothes. It's a
21 completely different matter, so please do not comment on my expert report
22 in this way. I was an expert in that case and I'm an expert in this
23 case, and I know absolutely well what I said at the time and what I said
24 now and what I wrote down.
25 Q. Let's move to one discrete area before we finish today. You
1 testified yesterday about your inability to examine some of the artefacts
2 from the mass graves because they had been disposed of. Now, you first
3 learned on the 3rd of June, 2009, about the disposal of these artefacts;
4 correct? That was at transcript page T 41736 in your testimony
6 A. I think I wrote about this, unless I'm mistaken, Mr. Mitchell --
7 Q. Well, you testified --
8 A. -- in Vujadin Popovic. At that time I received the report from
9 Mr. Zoran Zivanovic.
10 Q. Well, you testified yesterday that -- at transcript page 41736
11 that you learned that on the 3rd of June, 2009?
12 A. 3 July 2009, the counsel for Vujadin Popovic, in the case --
13 et cetera, et cetera. Yes, I said that.
14 Q. Okay. So, the three reports you had done in the Popovic case, in
15 April 2008, in September 2008, and April 2009, were all completed before
16 you found out that some of these artefacts had been destroyed; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So if you first learned of the destruction of the artefacts after
19 you completed the reports, you didn't ask to inspect any of those
20 artefacts during the completion of your reports; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So we can agree then that the fact that you didn't actually look
23 at these artefacts didn't hinder your preparation of those three reports
24 in any way; correct?
25 A. In a way, yes. I didn't even entertain the idea that some of
1 these artefacts existed. It was only when I found out that they were
2 destroyed did I realise that they had existed but were now destroyed. As
3 you can tell, it's the 3rd of July, 2009, in other words, at the end of
4 trial against Vujadin Popovic, whereas I completed my work in late
5 August 2009, this collated big report for Mr. Karadzic. So I thought
6 that it should be entered into that report as well because that was
7 practically the last document that had been disclosed by the Prosecution
8 in the Popovic case. It all seemed to have been coming in successively.
9 As information was coming in, I had to provide ad hoc comments. We
10 didn't yet discuss the DNA that we hadn't received from Parsons to check
12 Q. Well, in February of 2010 we disclosed a list of these artefacts
13 to Mr. Karadzic, and in the cover letter advised him that these items
14 were disposed of because the majority were potential health hazards
15 because they were in the process of degrading or decomposing. Now, you
16 yourself are aware of the difficulties in preserving biological material
17 that's come out of a mass grave, aren't you, Professor?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Because when you did the autopsies of the 39 bodies for
20 Lake Radonjic, you took samples from those bodies, didn't you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you took them back to Belgrade and then you put them in a
23 fridge at the Forensic Institute there?
24 A. Yes. In my institute, upon approval from the investigating
25 judge, Danica Marinkovic, we were given approval to take these artefacts
1 to our institute and to store them away there because we didn't know what
2 would happen in the meantime. These samples were to serve for our DNA
3 analysis that we subsequently conducted in Spain and this was paid for by
4 this Tribunal.
5 Q. Yes, well, the ICTY asked you in 2001 to send the samples to
6 Madrid for testing. And when you went to open the fridge, you found that
7 the labels on eight of the 39 samples had smudged and you couldn't tell
8 what they were; right?
9 A. A shock.
10 Q. So you went and put those eight samples in the bin?
11 A. We didn't throw them in the bin. Some of the samples had their
12 numbers preserved and others had to be destroyed. We couldn't use them
13 for our analysis because putrefaction progressed. It was an error that
14 we did at the time, I confess that. We placed them in the fridge but
15 there were power outages, humidity developed in the bags, and the numbers
16 were obliterated. And, professionally speaking, we made the mistake
17 because we did not otherwise label these blood and tissue samples. And
18 the samples that we took to Spain, I took them myself together with an
19 ICTY investigator. We took them to Spain and we produced a report.
20 Mistakes were made, I admit --
21 Q. Well, Professor, let me --
22 A. -- it was under my leadership and we did make mistakes.
23 Q. Let me stop you there. You've missed out a couple of key points
24 in that story. The samples that went to Spain, the remaining samples,
25 were contaminated and couldn't be used, right, so the bodies had to be
1 re-exhumed and new samples taken; right?
2 A. When you state it in these terms, that's how it turns out to be,
3 but the Court has to be well-informed. This means that at the time, in
4 2001, when the samples were taken, it was not possible to conduct DNA
5 analysis on the bones that had further decomposed. The results were
6 imprecise and poor. At the time the method was not good enough. It was
7 ultimately perfected in the IMP labs in Sarajevo and in Madrid because
8 they didn't have experience, and we're talking about the period of
10 The bones were stored in a fridge, there were power outages on
11 occasion because of the situation we were in, mold caught, and the tissue
12 itself was further contaminated and the routine DNA testing could not
13 return positive results. That was why samples were ultimately taken
14 again because the method was perfected in the meantime. You can ask
15 Parsons about that. Exhumations were done, samples were taken, in order
16 to confirm some of the identifications that we had arrived at through
17 classical means or conventional means without the DNA.
18 Q. Okay. One final question, Professor. Yesterday you testified at
19 transcript page 21736 that:
20 If certain artefacts are either destroyed or lost or not properly
21 described, I as a professional deem this to be showing disrespect to a
22 profession as well as a negligent attitude towards the Court and the
24 So, Professor, wouldn't you agree that given your own experience
25 with the difficulties in storing biological material, rather than being
1 disrespectful or negligent, it's actually perfectly appropriate to
2 dispose of an artefact that's a potential health hazard if appropriate
3 documentary and photographic records are maintained; correct?
4 A. Well, I have to respond right away. I agree that any risk of a
5 health hazard has to be avoided. However, it requires that I inform you,
6 as a Judge, that we will be destroying a number of artefacts but that
7 that would not have any bearing on our investigation so far.
8 What happened is this, we had this situation: One-third was
9 destroyed, the rest were relocated, and nobody was informed of it. And
10 then subsequently we find out that somebody analysed it, that it was a
11 health hazard, et cetera. All right. Whoever was involved in such a
12 process would be understandable; however, there has to be a document in
13 writing, as was the case here, there has to be a written document from a
14 prosecutor or a judge which will state: Yes, we agree with the opinion
15 of Mr. Dunjic, all of it has to be destroyed. That's all I wanted to
17 Q. Okay. But we can agree, where there's a health hazard, it's
18 perfectly acceptable to dispose of an artefact if there are proper
19 documentary and photographic records; correct?
20 A. Yes, in principle.
21 MR. MITCHELL: We can stop here, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
23 We'll continue tomorrow morning at 9.00. The hearing is
24 adjourned. Yes, it has been a long day.
25 THE WITNESS: Long day.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.54 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 24th day of
3 July, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.