1 Monday, 29
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.39 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court].
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good
7 morning, ladies and gentlemen; good morning to the
8 technical booth; good morning interpreters.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Good morning, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good
11 morning legal officers, court reporters, Mr. Harmon,
12 Mr. McCloskey. I see Mr. Cayley is not here. Good
13 morning, Mr. Petrusic, Mr. Visnjic; good morning,
14 Professor; good morning to the accused.
15 Have you had a good rest?
16 THE WITNESS: I have, thank you,
17 Mr. President.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Even with
19 this storm we had?
20 THE WITNESS: I stayed indoors.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I should
22 like to remind you, Professor, that you are continuing
23 under oath and you will now be answering some further
24 questions put to you by Mr. McCloskey.
25 Mr. McCloskey, you have the floor.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President, and
2 good morning; good morning, Your Honours; good morning,
3 Defence counsel.
4 WITNESS: RICHARD WRIGHT [Resumed]
5 Examined by Mr. McCloskey: [cont'd]
6 Q. Professor Wright, if we could, I'd like to go
7 back just briefly, and if you could place the
8 Exhibit 196 on the ELMO, the exhibit of your
9 computer-generated graves.
10 All right. I just want to clarify one
11 point. I know that previously we went over the
12 dimensions, the length, the width, and the depth of
13 each of the secondary graves you exhumed as well as the
14 dam, and I noticed that -- we also discussed the ramp
15 that was present in these graves, and I wondered, could
16 you discuss the depth, how accurate that depth figure
17 is for these graves, how that relates to the ramp?
18 A. Yes. The ramp on the Cancari 12 site which
19 we're looking at here is at this end, and the graves
20 get deeper as you go towards the end. That's the very
21 nature of the machinery digging them. So the depth
22 that I gave in my testimony on Friday relate to the
23 maximum depths that are at the far end of the grave
24 from the ramp.
25 Q. So in order to determine the volume of
1 basically the size of the grave, you would have to have
2 the exact or a better size of the actual depth of the
3 grave than the deepest side?
4 A. Yes. I didn't present any testimony on the
5 volume of the grave, merely the maximum depth. The
6 only exception to that is the grave of Zeleni Jadar,
7 which was not dug in this way. So that was a fairly
8 even depth all over.
9 Q. Now, also in your probing of all the
10 secondary graves, were you able to link any of the
11 secondary graves to each over merely by this brief
12 process of probing? Especially I'm referring -- were
13 you able to link Cancari 3 with any of the other probed
15 A. The content of glass at -- of broken glass at
16 Cancari 3 and at Cancari 1 led me to think that they
17 had both come from the same source, which I considered
18 to be the site of Kozluk.
19 Q. Thank you. Now, the Liplje sites. Clearly
20 the exhumation at Liplje show these very large, cut
21 boulders as you've described. Did you notice anything
22 like that in the other brief probings you did on the
23 other sides around Liplje?
24 A. The point about the Liplje grave is they're
25 not boulders in the geological sense. They are
1 actually quarried rock at Liplje, and that's unique to
2 Liplje and to the dam site.
3 Q. Did you come across any of that quarried rock
4 as you were probing the other two Liplje sites that you
6 A. No. I've never seen it anywhere else.
7 Q. Again, could you -- but the probing process
8 is not a detailed archaeological study in any way, is
10 A. It's not a detailed archaeological study, but
11 the content at Liplje of large, fractured rocks is such
12 that had it been present in any of the other sites, I
13 believe I would have seen it during the scraping
14 process at the top of the filling of the grave.
15 Q. We hope you have a chance to get to those
16 graves the upcoming summer.
17 Well, let's now get on to the following
18 summer, where you were able to look more into the
19 Kozluk site, which you were led to, the Kozluk site, by
20 the investigation. And you described briefly what you
21 found there the previous summer; the area near the
22 bottling factory, the surface remains and such.
23 But let's put Exhibit 201 on the ELMO, if we
24 could. If you could describe what that photo depicts.
25 A. This is obviously an aerial photograph taken
1 of the site of Kozluk. The area that we excavated in
2 is this area here. This is the River Drina which forms
3 the boundary between Republika Srpska and Serbia. This
4 is Serbia.
5 Q. And for the record -- excuse me, Professor
6 Wright -- the area of the exhumation was the large sort
7 of disturbed dirt area on the left of the photo, and
8 the area of Serbia is in the top of the photo on the
9 other side of the Drina River from the excavation?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Can you tell us what you -- a little bit
12 about the area and what you discovered as you excavated
13 this particular grave?
14 A. I first went there in 1998, when I suspected
15 that the Cancari 3 site had come from near Kozluk. And
16 when I went there, I found the whole area covered in
17 soil, but in one place there were human remains. There
18 was a leg and, I think, some other part of the anatomy,
19 and some clothing lying around, also shell cases from
20 rifle fire. But there was nothing else to be seen.
21 I returned with my team in 1999, in -- I
22 don't have the dates with me, but it was sometime in
23 the summer, late June, July of 1999, and we brought
24 some heavy earth-moving equipment with us. And there
25 were three things that we discovered at Kozluk.
1 Firstly, all traces of the burial of the
2 bodies had been covered up by soil, and I'd like to
3 divide the observations into three. Firstly, we
4 discovered places where bodies had been totally removed
5 by heavy machinery at some time before we got there.
6 Secondly, there were places where attempts
7 had been made to remove bodies, but my interpretation
8 is that the attempts were given up. Some bodies had
9 been taken away, but there were many parts of bodies
10 that were left in the soil and then covered up again
11 with clean soil.
12 Thirdly, there were places that I interpret
13 as places of execution. That is, we uncovered bodies
14 that had -- where the executed people had dropped on
15 the spot, and that had then been covered up with soil
16 and had been left entirely undisturbed. My
17 interpretation of those bodies as having dropped on the
18 spot after being shot is based on the lack of any
19 disturbance to the limbs, and also we recovered, by
20 means of metal detectors, bullets embedded in the clay
21 that was under the bodies.
22 Q. Now, we have some exhibits, I think, that
23 will help explain your conclusions, and if you could
24 put the next exhibit, which is 202, on the ELMO.
25 But before we get to that, let me ask,
1 generally as you excavated this grave, did you notice
2 this tell-tale green glass all throughout the grave
4 A. Yes. I think there was nowhere we didn't
5 find the green glass. I should qualify my use of the
6 word "grave". There was little or no sign of dug
7 graves of the sort that I have been giving testimony
9 This area at Kozluk is an area of sloping
10 ground. There are places where gravel and sand have
11 been extracted for commercial purposes. Nearly all the
12 bodies lay on the slopes and were then covered up with
13 dirt. So they are graves, yes, but they are not big,
14 excavated graves of the sort which we have been talking
15 about in previous testimony.
16 Q. Thank you. All right. And if you could put
17 Exhibit 202 on the ELMO, and if you could explain that
18 and how that fits into the conclusions you were just
19 speaking of.
20 A. This is the third type of deposit at Kozluk.
21 This is the place where we found -- this is one of the
22 places where we found bodies lying on a surface, this
23 surface from which we have removed the covering dirt
24 [indicates]. These bodies are lying individually, were
25 originally about a metre below the surface of the soil
1 that had covered them up. They are skeletonised
2 because they are so close to the surface, and
3 therefore, I decided in this case to expose the whole
4 width of bodies. Normally, we don't do that because
5 exposure of the fleshed bodies to oxygen causes more
6 putrefaction. But in this case they were virtually
7 skeletonised, so I made an exception to my normal
8 practice. And here are bodies lying on a surface
9 embedded in which we found many bullets.
10 Q. So just to clarify, your normal practice is
11 to, as you uncover a body, you take it away so it's not
12 open to the elements?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. But in this case, because they were
15 skeletonised -- and this is a good exhibit of what
16 happened -- you just uncovered all these bodies and
17 left them lying?
18 A. Yes, much more like a conventional
19 archaeologically excavation.
20 Q. And you spoke of people that you thought were
21 shot in the grave. Are those people depicted in this
22 particular photograph?
23 A. This is the place that we called Kozluk 2 and
24 where there's a limited number of bodies. The main
25 area I'll talk about later of Kozluk 3.
1 Q. And what can you tell us about the bodies
2 that you see in this photograph?
3 A. Several of them in this photograph, I think
4 about half of them, had their hands tied behind their
5 back or their hands arranged in such a position that I
6 believed their hands were tied behind their back. And
7 because these bodies are so close to the surface,
8 natural materials like cotton disintegrate as the
9 bodies disintegrate, so in other parts of the site
10 where the hands were behind the bodies, where they were
11 protected from destruction, we almost invariably found
12 ligatures, the actual ligatures themselves.
13 Q. Some of these bodies were actually
14 blindfolded, were they not?
15 A. In this particular photograph, I can't -- I
16 couldn't say -- speak to the numbers, but my memory is,
18 Q. In the Kozluk grave generally there were a
19 number of blindfolded bodies?
20 A. In the Kozluk grave generally there were many
21 blindfolded bodies, I think in the order of 16 per
23 Q. From this photograph, can you conclude
24 whether or not any of these individuals in the
25 photograph were shot in the grave?
1 A. I saw injuries that are consistent with
2 gunshot wounds, but, of course, the mortuary team
3 determined that. But I saw, in the case of these, at
4 least one of these individuals, a bullet embedded in
6 Q. I believe yesterday [sic] You testified that
7 you discovered bullets underneath some bodies. Was
8 that this group or another group?
9 A. In two places we found bullets underneath
10 bodies and this was one of them.
11 Q. Okay. Could you point out that and try to
12 describe, on the ELMO, which bodies you're talking
13 about, for the record. You may need to pull the
14 photograph or the ELMO may need to come up a bit to
15 include the entire photograph.
16 A. I do have an exhibit designed -- which shows
17 the distribution of bullets coming up, but essentially
18 they're embedded in this surface. This is the original
19 surface that was exposed at the time of execution. It
20 had, underneath the bodies, plant remains preserved
21 that were actually growing in place, had been growing
22 in place, so this was a land surface on which the
23 people had fallen when they were shot.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. And for the
25 record, Professor Wright has pointed to the five bodies
1 on the right side of the screen, that are separate from
2 each other, as well as to the cluster of bodies as you
3 move over to the left of the screen.
4 Q. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes, that's correct. At the bottom right of
6 the illustration is a -- where the surface suddenly
7 stops, this is an area where subsequent robbing
8 activity took place.
9 Q. How do you know that?
10 A. Because of the tooth marks and the disruption
11 and actual removal of the bodies that are on the edge
12 of this distribution. In other words, as you move
13 towards the bottom right of the photograph, there is a
14 sudden break which is where the robbing trench cut
15 across and removed some bones from bodies.
16 Q. When you say "tooth mark," you're talking
17 about the tooth marks of the digging machine that
18 robbed them; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Could you point out what you believe to be
21 tooth marks on this photograph?
22 A. Not on this photograph. I think they are
23 showing in this portion, but I have another
24 illustration to show that better.
25 Q. All right. And the -- where this trench
1 comes across the bodies, were those bodies actually cut
2 by this trenching action?
3 A. Yes. One had lost a leg by the trenching
5 Q. I believe the next exhibit is a better
6 exhibit on the tooth marks that you're speaking of, and
7 that is Exhibit 132/107. That is the same group of
8 individuals but a larger view; is that right?
9 A. Yes, at about 45 degrees the view. But we're
10 looking at the same bodies as we looked at in the
11 previous photographs, and the distribution from the
12 right-hand side to the left-hand side, something like
13 16 or 17 bodies.
14 Q. So the teeth marks on this, can you describe
16 A. Yes. In the foreground of the picture there
17 is trench showing. It's common in these graves to find
18 that either tyres or the teeth on the machines or both
19 have compressed the soil at the time of the removal of
20 the soil so that subsequent soil falls into the hollows
21 of the tooth marks. It's much looser and it's,
22 therefore, possible to remove it and to display the
23 machinery that was used to do the robbing.
24 Q. So how were you able to take the dirt off of
25 these bodies and these scrape marks without disturbing
1 the bodies or the scrape marks?
2 A. It's done in the normal archaeological way,
3 with trowels and with brushes.
4 Q. So your backhoe never got -- didn't get near
5 these bodies or these scrape marks, this was all done
6 by hand by you?
7 A. This is done by hand.
8 Q. Is there anything else in this photograph of
9 interest to your conclusions?
10 A. I think the fact that the bodies are
11 skeletonised shows up well. Some items of synthetic
12 clothing have survived well. The -- most of the
13 natural materials have been destroyed by the weathering
14 process because these bodies were quite close to the
16 Q. Now, we don't see the individual number
17 markings on these bodies that you usually photograph
18 next to bodies, but in some other of your photographic
19 records, each of these bodies will be identified by
20 number; is that correct?
21 A. Each of these bodies has been assigned a
22 sequence number, and that sequence number will be
23 included in the photograph of each body, and that
24 sequence number would have gone down with the body to
25 the mortuary.
1 Q. So this would allow us to ask the
2 pathologist, if necessary, to identify these bodies and
3 give us the conclusions of the autopsies of, for
4 example, these five that are on the right-hand side of
5 the picture?
6 A. Yes. The individual -- the bodies are
7 treated as individual bodies for the purpose of
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: For Your Honours, we have
10 asked one of the pathologists who will testify to go
11 over the results, particular results of these five,
12 just for your recollection, when we get to the
13 pathologists in a day or two.
14 Q. All right. Now, you mentioned other parts of
15 the grave. Can you discuss other parts of the grave
16 and how that fits into your conclusions?
17 A. The main area of discovery of bodies is what
18 we have called Kozluk 3, and in that area, we recovered
19 some 270 bodies, together with about 200 body parts
20 left over by the attempts to move some of those bodies.
21 Q. Can you describe how you found them and any
22 conclusions you might have reached?
23 A. They are some 20 or 30 metres to the west of
24 the picture that you have on the screen. We discovered
25 it by scraping down the covering of soil over the
1 bodies until we first found them and then the work
2 changed to being done by hand.
3 Q. Do these appear to be on, like you said
4 before, some kind of a slope?
5 A. They are on a slope. They are lying on
6 probably hundreds of thousands of pieces of broken
7 glass. In other words, before the people were
8 executed, the bottling factory had dumped many hundreds
9 of broken bottles down that slope, and all 270 bodies
10 at Kozluk 3 lie on that broken glass.
11 Q. Were you ever able to make any conclusions
12 about whether or not the people were killed where they
13 were lying or whether they were dumped there later?
14 A. On the margins of the distribution of the
15 270 bodies, where you're dealing with individual bodies
16 at the extremities of the body mass, the bodies looked
17 like they do in this photograph from Kozluk 3; that is,
18 they're lying on surfaces just beyond the glassy edge,
19 on their own, and where there are bullets embedded in
20 the clay.
21 Q. How about the large cluster of the group?
22 Were you able to determine anything or would that be
24 A. I considered whether or not these people
25 might have been shot on top of the slope and then
1 pushed by machinery down the slope as opposed to being
2 shot on the slope itself, on the glassy slope itself,
3 and I wasn't able to conclude one way or the other what
4 had happened. On the fringes of the main distribution
5 of bodies, however, they had definitely been shot in
7 Q. You found many shell casings throughout this
8 grave, didn't you?
9 A. Amongst the bodies and to the side of the
10 bodies, we found many shell casings.
11 Q. Could you put Exhibit 203 on the ELMO and
12 explain what that is?
13 A. I mentioned in my testimony on Friday that we
14 surveyed each of the bodies, taking 12 anatomical
15 landmarks. This allows us to produce maps of the
16 distribution of these bodies, of which this is the map
17 for the site of Kozluk 3 that we've been talking
19 Kozluk 3 -- in the case of Kozluk 3, the
20 bodies had soft tissue very well preserved, and here we
21 had to remove them as we found them, because it was the
22 height of summer and bacterial decomposition and
23 destruction by insects was beginning to start within
24 two or three hours of their exposure. So we removed
25 them one by one. Therefore, our survey is the only
1 record that we have of what the total mass of bodies
2 looks like, and this is a representation of the bodies
3 at Kozluk. There are 270 complete bodies represented
4 in this diagram. I haven't represented the body parts.
5 Q. The bodies are the little black stick
7 A. Yes. On the bottom left where this
8 individual is on its own, here where its on its own you
9 can see the effect, but, of course, within the main
10 mass of bodies where they were sometimes four thick,
11 you lose resolution, you lose detail.
12 Q. What are the little red marks?
13 A. Red dots are the shell casings that we found
14 as the bodies were removed. These are mixed up with
15 the bodies, lying to the side of the bodies, on the
16 surface on which the bodies lie.
17 Q. Now, is there anything else, any other major
18 conclusions you wish to share with the Court? And, of
19 course, the total number of individuals represented in
20 the grave, as you've received information from the
21 anthropologist, would also, of course, be important.
22 A. The anthropologist will have to testify to
23 that, but we removed -- my records show that we moved
24 from this location that is illustrated here some
25 270 bodies and some 200 body parts. I'm not aware of
1 how many individuals the anthropologist reconstructed
2 from these 200 body parts that are additional to the
3 270 shown here.
4 Q. All right. And just finally, Exhibit 223 is
5 your resume or your CV, and you've had a chance to
6 review that and that is an accurate copy of your CV; is
7 that correct?
8 A. That is.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honours, I have no
10 further questions at this time.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank
12 you very much, Mr. McCloskey.
13 Professor, you're now going to answer
14 questions put to you by Mr. Visnjic, the Defence
15 counsel, is going to ask you.
16 Mr. Visnjic, you have the floor.
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,
18 Mr. President.
19 Cross-examined by Mr. Visnjic:
20 Q. Professor Wright, in your statement about the
21 exhumations in 1998, within the frameworks of your
22 conclusions you state that none of the 857 individuals
23 were wearing military uniforms. Can you tell us -- can
24 you explain to us what you mean by the term "to wear
25 military uniform"? What do you consider that term to
1 mean in your statement?
2 A. By that statement, I mean that I did not see
3 essentially khaki jackets and khaki trousers of the
4 sort that I associate internationally with military
6 Q. Did you mean that some individuals had a
7 complete uniform or only parts of an army uniform? Is
8 it possible that individuals were wearing both civilian
9 and military clothing at the same time, parts of these
10 different types of clothing?
11 A. No, I was referring to items of military
12 clothing. I did not see, in 1998, nor in 1999, for
13 that matter, an item of military clothing in the grave,
14 though I have expressed in my report some caution there
15 because the clothing is covered in mud in many
16 instances and so the final conclusion about the nature
17 of the clothing we found is done by the mortuary staff
18 after washing the clothes. But I did not see, in the
19 course of exhumations, an item of military clothing.
20 Q. In the same report, within your conclusions
21 you state that on the basis of the findings by
22 Mr. Mills, that it was possible to ascertain the time
23 of the execution as being Thursday, the 14th of July,
25 My question is the following: In your
1 report, you mention that you found ten watches, eight
2 of which are in keeping with a certain mathematical
3 procedure and is incorporated into this term. Bearing
4 in mind the two watches that don't fit, is it possible
5 that in the same site, grave site, people were buried
6 which were executed earlier on or later on and then
7 introduced into the sites, into the graves, later on?
8 A. On the basis of the watches alone -- on the
9 basis of the watches that I observed in the course of
10 excavation, I was struck by the fact that eight out of
11 ten showed either "Saturday 15" or "Sunday 16" in the
12 windows. My understanding of these watches is that --
13 because I actually own one myself -- is that they --
14 you do not have to set the day or the date in order for
15 the watch to work as a timepiece. So although one
16 possible conclusion would be, from a watch that did not
17 show ""Friday [sic] 15" or "Sunday 16", one possible
18 conclusion would be that its user died at a different
19 time. It's not a necessary conclusion, because the day
20 and the date may never have been set.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me. Perhaps we could
22 clarify which grave you're talking about. I believe
23 that these watches are specific to specific graves, and
24 that may make more sense.
25 A. I'm talking -- in my report, I list the --
1 I'm sorry, were you addressing the question to me or --
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: No. That was just an
3 objection to try to clarify the record, because the
4 question is vague as to --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me. It's an objection
7 as to vagueness, because we don't know which grave site
8 he's talking about.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 Mr. Visnjic, could you specify and tell us exactly what
11 you mean in your question so that we can follow the
12 discussion. So when you're talking about watches,
13 perhaps it would be a good idea for you to indicate
14 what the grave site is that you're referring to where
15 the watches were found. Otherwise, it is difficult to
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
18 in the question -- that is to say, we are talking about
19 two watches found at the Hodzici grave site, A-4. That
20 is what it states in the professor's statement, at
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
23 Mr. McCloskey, is that precision sufficient for you?
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think Professor Wright has
25 a whole section on the watches that he, in order to
1 shed light on this during testimony, may want to
2 discuss, because it doesn't make any sense if discussed
3 without the knowledge of which watches were found in
4 which grave, and of course each secondary grave is
5 associated to a primary grave, and we have evidence on
6 the record of when the primary graves were created.
7 And so I think in order for this discussion to make
8 sense, we need to definitely get back into the
9 particular grave, the particular watches, because
10 watches were found in different graves, both primary
11 and secondary, and it's difficult to understand this
12 particular discussion of the analysis of these
13 particular artefacts unless we go back to the
14 beginning, to some degree. But Professor Wright knows
15 all about this and he can discuss it, so I merely say
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Very
18 well. Perhaps Mr. Visnjic could ask the question in a
19 more precise way, and then Professor Wright can answer
20 and explain. And at the end, if there are any
21 difficulties, you can take up the matter,
22 Mr. McCloskey, later on in your redirect. I think that
23 that is the way to proceed.
24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,
25 Mr. President.
1 Q. Professor Wright, can you tell us the
2 following: When you located the secondary grave sites,
3 were the aerial photographs, for your purposes and
4 investigation, were they decisive in determining their
5 exact locations as well as the other indicators such as
6 the Hodzici road?
7 A. The aerial photographs were, in a sense,
8 precise. But the area that they showed was an area of
9 general disturbance, which was much larger than the
10 grave itself. So the area of disturbance might be in
11 the order of 100 metres by 100 metres, but within that
12 there was a grave that might be 30 metres long and five
13 metres -- and three metres broad. So the aerial
14 photographs allowed us to go to the general area, but
15 exploratory work with a backhoe had to be done to find
16 the exact grave.
17 Q. My next question is linked to that answer of
18 yours. Is it a logical assumption that underneath the
19 larger surface that was dug, that you find the largest
20 number of bodies? Was this assumption borne out and
21 confirmed in practice?
22 A. I didn't do any formal analysis of the
23 relation of the disturbed area shown by aerial images
24 and the number of bodies. I couldn't answer that
1 Q. Can you tell us how it was decided which of
2 the secondary grave sites in a certain location -- let
3 us take, for example, the Hodzici road -- would be
4 exhumated and which did you leave for a subsequent
6 A. One of our considerations was that we could
7 get to the site the heavy equipment and the -- or set
8 up the camp with washing facilities and analytical
9 facilities and so on. Some of the sites were suitable
10 for that, some were not. All of them, except for
11 Hodzici 1, were by the side of a good gravel road. We
12 decided, on the basis of the ease of work -- the
13 separation, for instance, in Cancari road between
14 number 12 and number 3 was a sample of two that were
15 well separated. So there were a mixture of factors
16 that made us decide which ones to totally exhume and
17 which ones to probe.
18 Q. During your testimony yesterday [sic], you
19 said that on the basis of your experience from Bosnia,
20 you were able to conclude that the blue and green
21 colour of the soil indicated that below the soil it
22 would be probable to expect bodies.
23 My question is the following: Based on your
24 experience, did this refer only to the Bosnia area as a
25 geographical region, to Bosnia itself, or -- bearing in
1 mind the climate, the soil composition and so on, or
2 did other factors influence you to draw that conclusion
3 based on your previous experience?
4 A. In terms of my own previous experience in the
5 Ukraine, we saw dark soil associated with the bodies,
6 but we did not see this bright green/blue soil. That
7 is unique to my Bosnian experience, though I have read
8 textbooks on homicide investigations, and the
9 occurrence of such blue/green soil associated with
10 bodies is commonly mentioned.
11 Q. Were there any differences in colour with the
12 secondary and -- primary and secondary grave sites in
13 terms of soil colour?
14 A. No, I can't say that there were consistent
15 differences. The primary sites that I saw were the
16 dam -- that I investigated were the dam site, Petkovci
17 Dam site. Around the bodies were certainly this --
18 around the body parts was this greenish soil. And the
19 other primary site I have worked on is Kozluk, and
20 again around the bodies that still had flesh associated
21 with them was this green soil. I don't remember any
22 differences between the general properties of the soil
23 in those two primary sites and in the secondary sites.
24 Q. Judging from your experience, what level
25 above and below the bodies does this colouring of the
1 soil take place?
2 A. It extends to beyond the bodies, perhaps to
3 20 or 30 centimetres beyond the bodies, even into the
4 undisturbed soil alongside the bodies. I should say 20
5 or 30 centimetres.
6 Q. Above and below the body level, you say; is
7 that correct?
8 A. And to the side.
9 Q. Thank you. This experience of yours, does it
10 relate -- is it the same for primary and secondary
11 grave sites?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Does the same colouring in the soil -- would
14 the bodies of animals produce the same soil colouring,
15 animals or some other putrefaction, decomposition?
16 Would it give the same soil colouring?
17 A. I imagine that's so, but I don't have any
18 direct experience of digging where there's a mass of
19 animals buried. But I don't think it's something
20 peculiar to human remains.
21 Q. Professor Wright, with respect to your
22 experience as far as secondary grave sites are
23 concerned, your experience in that field, what would
24 you say determines these sites of secondary grave
25 sites? What led the perpetrators to choose a
1 particular secondary grave site? Was it the
2 configuration of the soil, whether it was soft soil
3 which would be easy to dig, or would you say there were
4 other elements that led them to choose a particular
5 secondary grave site?
6 A. The only answer I can give to that is that
7 the sites were accessible to trucks. I can't speak for
8 the people who dug the secondary graves, but I did
9 observe that all of the sites could be driven to by
10 vehicles, by heavy vehicles.
11 Q. Professor, during your testimony today in the
12 examination-in-chief, you said that you found the
13 bodies -- parts of bodies of two individuals at the
14 surface of the soil in Kozluk in 1998. According to
15 your assessment, what was the age of the body parts on
16 that surface; that is to say, how long were they on the
18 A. I couldn't say, in number of years, but they
19 still had flesh and tissue holding the bones together.
20 They were clearly not very old. But just looking at
21 those bones on their own, I couldn't say how old they
22 were. The body parts, I couldn't say how old they
24 Can I add to that? Now I have studied the
25 site, I know they must be later than the executions and
1 the main burials, because they're lying on soil that
2 was put back over the disturbed remains.
3 Q. Were these body parts damaged in any way?
4 A. By definition, because they're body parts,
5 they must have been removed from complete bodies. So
6 to that extent they were damaged.
7 Q. At what depth underneath these body parts
8 were the rest of the bodies in the grave site located?
9 A. At the exact spot where we found those body
10 parts on the surface in 1998, immediately below that
11 there were no other bodies. The other bodies were to
12 the west and to the east of those two remains. There
13 was something like 20 metres separating the site of
14 Kozluk 2, the grave of Kozluk 2 from Kozluk 3, and they
15 are on the surface between those two areas.
16 Q. Could you say whether in that locality,
17 whether there were more exhumations at one particular
18 spot, whether the primary gave sites were dug over
19 several times?
20 A. No. I think that the observations we made
21 only require one episode of robbing of the area. I
22 didn't see any indications that led me to suggest that
23 it had been dug over many times.
24 Q. On the basis of your experience, again can
25 you exclude the possibility of there being many
1 diggings, that is to say that the bodies had been
2 buried many times, several times?
3 A. At Kozluk, yes, because most of the bodies
4 were totally undisturbed. It was only near the top of
5 the main mass of the bodies that there were body parts
6 and disturbance. Most of them were totally
8 Q. Within the frameworks of that same report of
9 yours, you say that a number of body parts were pulled
10 off from the bodies during the exhumation and in the
11 attempt to cover up the primary grave site, that they
12 were severed from the main body. Do you know -- I know
13 that this does not come exclusively within your field
14 of expertise, but do you happen to know whether the
15 pathologists, when they made the identifications,
16 whether they discovered any of those body parts and
17 were able to incorporate them? Did they find them in
18 the secondary grave sites and were they able to link
19 them up to the bodies that were found in the primary
20 grave sites? Were they able to put two together?
21 A. I think you're referring to the Cancari 3
22 site and the Kozluk site. I don't know whether they
23 were able to fit them together. I have not been -- I
24 have not taken part in the mortuary operation, so I
25 don't know the results there.
1 Q. During your testimony today, you said that
2 certain casings had been found below the bodies. When
3 a bullet penetrates a human body, how deep can it go
4 below the body and what does that depend on?
5 A. I'm not a ballistics expert. I should say
6 that the shell cases at Kozluk were found mixed up with
7 the bodies as well as below the bodies, that is, the
8 shell cases. The bullets were both on the edges of the
9 Kozluk 3 site, that is, the main mass of bodies, and at
10 Kozluk 2 were embedded in the clay below the bodies to
11 a depth of about 5 centimetres.
12 The shell cases were not found embedded in
13 the clay underneath. The shell cases were found on the
14 surface on which the bodies lay, amongst the bodies,
15 and on top of the bodies. But I cannot -- not having
16 any expertise in ballistics, I cannot comment on the
17 significance of that except to say where I found them.
18 Q. The number of bullets found, did it
19 correspond to the number of persons executed?
20 A. Can I ask you if we're referring to the
21 number of shell cases or the number of bullets?
22 Q. Number of bullets.
23 A. I don't know how many bullets were found
24 altogether. A lot of them will also have been found in
25 the mortuary. And although in the site logs we
1 recorded all the bullets found by ourselves, you would
2 have to add to those the bullets that were found in the
3 mortuary operation. I don't have that number with me.
4 Q. Also in your report referring to Kozluk, you
5 stated that the bodies were transported by trucks. I
6 think that this is to be found on page 12 of your
7 report, just to help you. Page 12, paragraph 2, last
9 A. Yes. That conclusion was based on the
10 observations that we made in 1998, that there was a
11 slope which had clothing and some body parts on it
12 that -- where there were body parts spilled down the
13 slope, and I interpreted that as being the remains of
14 the removal of the bodies after the robbing of the
15 primary grave. I didn't, however, see truck marks or
16 any other evidence. That is an interpretation based on
17 my knowledge of the Cancari 3 site, to which I
18 attribute the bodies in the Cancari 3 site to having
19 come from Kozluk. And knowing the road distances, I,
20 therefore, assume they must have come by truck, and I
21 identified at the Kozluk site a place in the landscape
22 which had clothing and body parts and which I think is
23 consistent with the place where the bodies were loaded
24 into the trucks.
25 Q. Professor Wright, I should like to go back to
1 your previous testimony regarding the primary grave
2 site at the dam at Petkovci.
3 During your examination-in-chief, you said
4 that because of the composition of the soil, which is
5 rocky and allows for oxygen to pass, that the
6 putrefication of soft tissue was speeded up.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could it be that for the same reason, because
9 of the circulation of air, that bodies are mummified
10 more quickly too?
11 A. For a body to become mummified, in my
12 opinion, it has to be dry, and the site at the dam is
13 far from dry because of the rainfall that falls on the
14 surface of the ground. So I would not expect bodies,
15 under those circumstances, to become mummified.
16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I should like
17 to ask the registrar to show the witness Prosecution
18 Exhibit 22/8. It is a photograph. So could it be
19 shown to the Witness, please.
20 I should also like to ask the registrar,
21 Mr. President, Mr. President, to facilitate
22 proceedings, this is a page of the transcript in which
23 the Professor is explaining this photograph. I'm
24 sorry, not the Professor but Mr. Ruez. Mr. Ruez was
25 commenting on this photograph. It is page 742 of the
1 transcript, on the 15th of March, 2000, when the
2 investigator of the Prosecution's Office, Mr. Ruez, was
3 explaining this photograph or, rather, Exhibit 22/8.
4 Q. Professor, the part that I should like to
5 refer to has been highlighted in yellow, and it has to
6 do with the following: The ligatures or the cloth, as
7 Mr. Ruez said was like a ligature, was found on the
8 surface or immediately below the surface of the soil at
9 the dam.
10 My question is the following: How long is it
11 possible for a piece of cloth of this kind to remain on
12 the surface without decomposing, in view of the
13 composition of the material?
14 A. My experience of these sites is that the
15 answer depends on the type of the material. If it's a
16 natural material such as cotton or wool, then it is
17 destroyed very quickly. If it's an artificial material
18 such as nylon or polyester, then it will last for many,
19 many years. I don't know the composition of this
20 particular item, so I can't answer your question
21 directly. I can only distinguish between -- in
22 answering that general question, I can only distinguish
23 between natural and artificial materials, and they have
24 different -- they have different lifetimes in the
1 Q. I should like to ask for Prosecution
2 Exhibit 131/1.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
4 Mr. Visnjic, excuse me for interrupting you. Are you
5 going to use other exhibits? In that case, you can
6 tell the registrar the exhibit numbers in advance so
7 that she can prepare them for you.
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
9 I had thought about it, but in view of the fact that we
10 didn't ask for a break between the examination-in-chief
11 and the cross, and I'm close to ending my cross, so I
12 think this is a more rational way to proceed.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I
14 understand. Thank you anyway, Mr. Visnjic.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me. I'm having a
16 problem finding it. If we can take a break perhaps.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps I
18 see that Mr. Harmon is going to find the exhibit for
20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Professor Wright, my question is: Is this
22 the type of material that can last for a protracted
23 period of time?
24 A. Yes. I have seen this material in the sites
25 we've exhumed. I identify this as a polyester twine.
1 Therefore, it being polyester, I would expect this to
2 last for a protracted period of time.
3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Exhibit 131/1
4 also has a first page containing explanations, so could
5 I ask for that to be shown to the witness as well,
6 please. Yes, yes, that's it.
7 A. Do you want me to display this?
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, please.
9 Q. Professor Wright, can you just explain to us
10 these two numbers that appear here in the left-hand
11 corner, lower left-hand box?
12 A. I can't explain those numbers from my direct
13 experience. These numbers are assigned to that object
14 after I have handed the material over to the mortuary.
15 So I don't know the significance of those numbers.
16 Q. Professor Wright, according to your report
17 and findings, how many hand ligatures were found at the
18 dam grave site?
19 A. To answer that, I would have to consult my
20 report, and then I would also have to consult the log
21 that was taken of the remains. I have my report with
22 me and I can have a look at that, but I do not have the
23 log which has been tendered in evidence and is part of
24 ICTY's records. I don't have it with me, but I will
25 look first in my report and see if I made mention of
1 these things.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
3 Mr. Visnjic, would you like a break now? Would that be
4 convenient? We have been working for an hour and a
5 quarter. Perhaps we could have a break now. You are
6 about to finish, are you?
7 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
8 I only have one further brief question for Professor
9 Wright, so I can put it before the break, or it's up to
10 you. If you decide to have the break now, it's fine.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In any
12 event, as we have questions by the Judges later,
13 perhaps it would be better to have a break now so that
14 Professor Wright can have a chance to look through his
15 report. And then we can resume, because we need to
16 have the re-examination and the questions of the
18 So we'll now have a 20-minute break.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.48 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 11.13 a.m.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We're
22 resuming the hearing. Mr. Visnjic, you may continue,
24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,
25 Mr. President.
1 Q. Professor Wright, would you be so kind as to
2 put Exhibit 22/8 onto the ELMO.
3 A. This is the one?
4 Q. Professor Wright, based on your experience,
5 if we were to compare the ligature shown on this
6 photograph, 22/8, and the ligature shown on Exhibit
7 131/1, the one you described earlier on, which of these
8 two materials can have a longer lifetime on the surface
9 of the soil?
10 A. I can't answer that because I don't know the
11 material from which this ligature was made. If it was
12 made of polyester, then it would last a long time. If
13 it was made of cotton, I wouldn't expect it to last
14 very long.
15 Can I just clarify one point too -- at one
16 point as well, that in the testimony that I was shown,
17 that is, in this page, the time of discovery of this
18 item is said to be April 1998. I think it should read
19 "April 1997", because it was found before I went to
20 the site.
21 Q. Thank you for the explanation.
22 Professor Wright, my next question has to do
23 with the part of your report dealing with the potential
24 grave site at Potocari. You carried out some
25 investigations there, but you didn't find any bodies or
1 remains there?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. However, in your report, if I understood you
4 correctly, you do express a certain doubt or
5 suspicion. So could you comment on that in a little
6 more detail, please?
7 A. Yes. I was asked to go to an area behind the
8 bus station at Potocari where there were aerial images
9 of disturbed soil. I looked in two of these places.
10 In one, I could detect nothing. In the second one, a
11 hole -- a large hole had in the past been dug and
12 refilled, but it had no human remains in the refilling,
13 no body parts in the refilling. What I did see near
14 the top were some lumps of this green putrid clay, but
15 there were no body parts adhering to them, and I am
16 unable to come to any firm conclusion about the
17 Potocari site.
18 Q. Thank you, Professor Wright. Professor,
19 could you exclude the possibility of certain grave
20 sites -- I'm talking about primary grave sites such as
21 Kozluk, for instance -- after bodies had been buried
22 there, bodies of people who were executed en masse,
23 that there may have been additional burials of other
24 bodies from other locations? Is this a possibility?
25 A. No. We studied the stratigraphy, that is,
1 the layers of soil, very carefully, and I saw no
2 evidence of subsequent burial at Kozluk. And in my
3 opinion, that's not a possibility.
4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
5 that ends my cross-examination.
6 Professor Wright, thank you.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
8 very much, Mr. Visnjic.
9 Mr. McCloskey, any additional questions?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, briefly, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please go
13 Re-examined by Mr. McCloskey:
14 Q. Professor Wright, I believe you have Exhibit
15 5/22 [Realtime transcript read in error "522"], the
16 aerial image of Potocari, and could you place that on
17 the ELMO.
18 So after the season of 1999, you were asked
19 to go explore a site behind the Express bus compound in
20 Potocari; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you point, with your pointer, to the
23 area that you actually took a look at and excavated?
24 A. There are three areas marked by an arrow. I
25 looked at this area, and I looked at that area, and
1 this is the area in which I was able to identify that a
2 large hole had been dug in the past.
3 Q. You're referring to the area, the large hole,
4 is the middle arrow.
5 A. The middle arrow.
6 Q. And you looked at the arrow to the bottom of
7 the area -- of the arrow at the bottom of the picture
8 and didn't find anything but you did find a hole under
9 the middle arrow; is that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And how big was that hole?
12 A. I would need to consult my report. My memory
13 is that it was about 6 metres by 4 metres, but the
14 dimensions are given in my report, if I may consult
15 that. Eight metres square by 2 metres deep was my
16 estimate of the size of that hole.
17 Q. Were you able to get any indication of
18 whether it was dug by hand or dug by machine?
19 A. No direct indication, no.
20 Q. Do you recall how deep in the hole the green
21 clay or the green soil was that you found that is
22 usually indicative of some sort of organic body flesh?
23 A. I saw these scattered lumps of this green
24 clay near the top of the filling of the hole.
25 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, getting back to
1 the watch artefacts --
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
3 Mr. McCloskey, I apologise for interrupting you, but
4 for the transcript, the exhibit that you showed
5 Professor right was 5/22, was it?
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: According to my records, yes,
7 Mr. President.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Because I
9 see on the LiveNote it says "522." So it needs to be
10 corrected; 5/22.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Now, back to the analysis of the watches. I
13 think if we use the example of the dam, which is, I
14 believe, the first time in the Srebrenica case that you
15 found and analysed a watch; is that correct?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Okay. Can you explain the circumstances of
18 finding that watch and the information that you gained
19 in your analysis?
20 A. The watch from the dam site was found as an
21 isolated artefact within the filling of the grave,
22 because the bodies had been mostly broken up and we
23 were finding artefacts in the filling of the grave.
24 This particular watch is a mechanical,
25 automatic watch that stops about 36 to 48 hours after
1 the last movement of the individual's wrist. If any
2 memory serves me correctly, the watch at the dam site
3 showed, in its day/date window, the combination of
4 "Sunday" and "16th."
5 Q. So you found out the information that if it
6 had stopped, you would just make some simple arithmetic
7 and determine the date that it actually stopped moving;
8 is that right?
9 A. Yes. One watch on its own, even perhaps two
10 watches, don't take on significance. Only at the end
11 of the season was the significance clear to me, and
12 that is that the remarkable coincidence had taken place
13 if these eight out of -- if all ten watches had stopped
14 at random, the chances of eight out of ten showing
15 either "Saturday 15" or "Sunday 16" can be simply
16 calculated as several millions to one. So some
17 event -- I believe some common event had caused this
18 tendency for watches to stop on Saturday 15 or Sunday
19 16. That was my conclusion.
20 Q. So basically you had eight watches that if
21 you do the subtraction, would have stopped their
22 natural movement around the -- on the 14th or 15th; is
23 that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you were told by the investigators that
1 there was indications that some mass executions
2 occurred on the 14th and 15th?
3 A. That's what Mr. Rhodes told me.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Nothing further, Your
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,
7 Mr. McCloskey.
8 Judge Fouad Riad.
9 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Thank you,
10 Mr. President.
11 Questioned by the Court:
12 JUDGE RIAD: Good morning, Professor.
13 A. Good morning, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE RIAD: I have a question really in the
15 light of information you gave this morning, in the
16 testimony of this morning, as I was not present
18 You mentioned that, and I quote you, "On the
19 fringes," when you're speaking of Kozluk 3, "On the
20 fringes of the main distribution of bodies, they had
21 been shot in place," and they could not have been shot
22 on the slope itself or on the top of the slope and
23 pushed down by machinery, according to your
25 Then speaking also of Kozluk 2, you mentioned
1 that they had -- or some had their hands tied back, and
2 then you mentioned later that 16 per cent were
3 blindfolded and that none were wearing military
4 clothes. You mentioned something like 875 were not
5 wearing any military clothes.
6 Some of the information I would like to base
7 my question on, and to ask you if you are in a position
8 to determine whether the killing or some of it took
9 place in a fight or took place in an execution.
10 A. Well, Your Honour, if I can just distinguish
11 one or two points there. The absence of military
12 clothing that applied to 800 and something individuals
13 is for all the sites that I have exhumed. At Kozluk
14 there were some 280 individuals, none of whom had
15 military clothing.
16 At Kozluk, on the fringes of the site, I was
17 able to conclude that the people had been shot on the
18 spot because they lay on this vegetated surface and we
19 found bullets embedded in this surface.
20 In the middle of the main mass of bodies at
21 Kozluk, because they lay on glass, on broken glass, and
22 because bodies underneath would have absorbed some of
23 the bullets from above, I was not able to determine
24 directly that they had been shot on the spot, but the
25 arrangement of the bodies is consistent with their
1 having been shot on the spot.
2 At Kozluk, I -- where the evidence was of a
3 sort, where the location of the bodies was of a sort
4 that would allow me to determine whether they had been
5 killed on the spot or been brought from somewhere else,
6 I concluded that they had been shot on the spot. I saw
7 no positive evidence that the bodies had been brought
8 from anywhere else.
9 JUDGE RIAD: And being shot on the spot
10 excludes being shot in a fight, the arrangement you
12 A. No, I think being shot on the spot does not
13 exclude people being shot in a fight. However, at
14 Kozluk, 42 per cent of the 280 individuals had their
15 hands tied behind their back, and in my opinion, that
16 does exclude people being shot in a fight.
17 JUDGE RIAD: And there were no weapons -- no
18 kind of weapons around these bodies which suggests that
19 these people were carrying weapons or using them?
20 A. No, I don't remember, at Kozluk, any weapons
21 whatsoever. We found the discarded shell cases from
22 rifles and we found bullets, but I don't remember
23 finding any weapons.
24 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Professor
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
2 very much, Judge Fuad Riad. Judge Wald.
3 JUDGE WALD: Professor Wright, if you come
4 upon a mass grave or a grave with many bodies in it,
5 and this is to be based on your experience generally,
6 is it possible to tell if the bodies in those graves
7 have been put in there at different time periods? I
8 mean maybe not within a day or so, but within weeks or
9 months, at different time periods, or whether they were
10 all put in there at approximately the same time.
11 A. I think I haven't found any graves that I
12 have interpreted in that way. In my experience, I have
13 two sites, one in the Ukraine and one in Bosnia that is
14 not part of this current case, where I have concluded
15 that bodies were put in on two occasions, but there was
16 a small amount of time between them.
17 At what I would expect, yes, it should be
18 possible, because if bodies were put in, say, in --
19 talking generally, if they were put in in May, the
20 month of May, and then covered up with some soil, and
21 then more bodies were put in, that would be an
22 indication. If they were put in in May and not covered
23 up with soil, I would expect considerable destruction
24 of the tissues and evidence of survival of insects and
25 beetles, which we commonly find on bodies that have
1 been left exposed for some time.
2 So, yes, in general, I would be able to tell
3 whether bodies had been put into a grave and, sometime
4 later, new ones added.
5 JUDGE WALD: Right. And in the case of the
6 bodies that you exhumed about which you testified here,
7 did you see any such indications that bodies had been
8 put in at significantly different times?
9 A. No, I saw no indications that would require
10 me to conclude that.
11 JUDGE WALD: And the second part of my
12 question is: In the case -- this would probably be
13 primarily secondary graves -- you were able to tell, I
14 gather from reading your report and some of the others,
15 when bodies have come from different locations either
16 because they have different soils or in the case of the
17 glass; is that generally true? If a secondary grave
18 contains bodies from two different primary sites, you
19 would be able to tell that?
20 A. Yes, I should be able to tell that.
21 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Professor
23 Wright, I have a question of a general nature.
24 You have seen several mass grave sites. Are
25 you able to have an idea of the means of organisation
1 required? Let us say the means and the organisation
2 that was used in order to arrive at the results that
3 you were able to observe.
4 A. Yes, I would have two comments to make on
6 Firstly, the organisation of the digging of
7 the grave is manifest by whether or not machinery was
8 used. If it's dug by hand, it can be done quite
9 casually. If it's dug by machinery, then obviously
10 it's a bigger organisation required.
11 My second comment is, that having related the
12 primary graves to the secondary graves, I can conclude
13 that the bodies were not taken by hand over several
14 kilometres but were taken by truck, and that again
15 bears on the question of the level of organisation.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In your
17 opinion and from your viewpoint, is there a difference
18 between organisation for primary grave sites and the
19 organisation required for secondary grave sites?
20 A. Yes, Mr. President, I'd say there is a
21 difference in level of organisation. In the case, for
22 example, of the Kozluk site, some few hundred living
23 people were taken there and executed. That would
24 require much more organisation than the removal of the
25 bodies from the Kozluk site to secondary graves.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Are you
2 also able to reconstruct the organisation required on
3 the basis of the results observed for, let us say, the
4 primary mass graves and for the secondary mass graves?
5 Can you reconstruct -- repeat the type of organisation
6 that was used?
7 A. I think the answer to that question bears on
8 whether or not the event took place in a very short
9 period of time, and my conclusion at all the sites is
10 that -- or rather I should say my conclusion at Kozluk
11 and the secondary graves is that both operations took
12 place over a very short period of time. The shorter
13 the time, the greater the level of organisation
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
16 very much, Professor Wright, for coming here to speak
17 before us. I should also like to thank you for
18 cooperating with the international justice system. We
19 thank you very much and wish you bon voyage back to
20 your country, and every success in your continuing
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I do have some
24 exhibits to tender, and they would be 188, 189 through
25 194, 196 through 205, and 223.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
3 Mr. Visnjic, do you have any objections to make?
4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I do not,
5 Mr. President.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think,
7 Mr. Visnjic, that it is not necessary to tender that
8 copy of the transcript, because we have our own
9 references, and so we have -- you have tendered the
10 evidence and it has been admitted.
11 What are we going to do now, Mr. McCloskey,
12 or perhaps Mr. Harmon?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, it's still
14 me. We have Dr. Bill Haglund, the chief of the
15 exhumation season for 1996, who is a forensic
16 anthropologist as opposed to Professor Wright, who is
17 an archaeologist, and he will be able to tell us, much
18 in the same vein as Professor Wright, about the
19 exhumations and the results from 1996. He is ready to
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Have the
22 witness brought in, please.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I believe we had his exhibits
25 ready to go, if we could put them next to him.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Professor
2 Haglund, can you hear me?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good
5 morning to you. You are now going to read the solemn
6 declaration that the usher is going to give you.
7 Please go ahead.
8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
11 WITNESS: WILLIAM HAGLUND
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be
13 seated. I think that you are quite familiar with
14 procedure in the courtroom, so I can take it that you
15 feel at ease, Professor.
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 And thank you for coming, to begin with. For the
19 moment, you're going to answer questions put to you by
20 Mr. McCloskey.
21 Mr. McCloskey, you have the floor.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Examined by Mr. McCloskey:
24 Q. Could you state your name and spell your
1 A. Yes, William D. Haglund, H-a-g-l-u-n-d.
2 Q. And what is your profession?
3 A. A forensic anthropologist.
4 Q. And can you give us your educational
6 A. Yes. I received my Ph.D in physical
7 anthropology at the University of Washington in
8 Seattle, Washington State, United States.
9 Q. Prior to that what was your undergraduate?
10 A. My undergraduate, I received also a masters
11 degree in physical anthropologist and a bachelor's
12 degree in biology.
13 Q. Could you give us a brief outline of your
14 employment history?
15 A. In forensics, for 16 years I was employed by
16 the King County Medical Examiner's Office in Seattle,
17 Washington. That's an office that has jurisdiction
18 over all unexpected, sudden deaths; homicides;
19 accidents; suicides; natural deaths that are
20 unattended; and those deaths of suspicious or sudden
22 Q. What was your position there?
23 A. I was the chief medical investigator. In
24 that position, I supervised the death scene
25 investigators who actually went to the death scenes,
1 the autopsy staff; and as an anthropologist, I would
2 respond to outdoor scenes and assist police and protect
3 our office's interests in the recovery of buried
4 skeletal remains, scavenged remains, and remains where
5 there were identification problems.
6 Q. All right. What kind of field experience
7 have you had and employment after leaving Seattle, the
8 Seattle office?
9 A. Well, I took holidays and went on some
10 foreign missions. In 1993, I was a member of the
11 expert committee and went to Croatia. I then, on a
12 yearly basis, once or twice a year, would go to
13 Honduras, where I would do exhumations and
14 identifications of individuals.
15 Q. When did you first start working for the
16 International Criminal Tribunal?
17 A. In an official capacity, other than missions,
18 in December 31, 1995.
19 Q. And can you describe to us what the term
20 "forensic" means and especially as it relates to
21 anthropology, your expertise?
22 A. Well, let's first look at physical
23 anthropology. Physical anthropology basically deals
24 with the human skeleton, its development, its
25 maturation, and how skeletons of some populations
1 compare with other populations. The forensic physical
2 anthropologist, also in the United States, takes
3 courses in human genetics, archaeology, and
5 Forensic anthropology is the application of
6 that skeletal component, the development, maturation of
7 the human skeleton to the medical-legal context, and
8 traditionally forensic anthropologists have been called
9 upon to identify human remains, skeletal remains
10 usually, decomposed remains, remains where there's a
11 question of identity. They've been asked to analyse
12 and examine the skeleton, determine the sex, the race
13 when appropriate, the age, stature. Sometimes we could
14 tell about handedness, what side the person favours
15 when they use their hands. Do interpretation of
16 skeletal trauma, and sometimes we can tell something
17 about how a person lived their life or what kinds of
18 traumas they may have suffered during life.
19 More recently, in the last two decades in the
20 United States, forensic anthropologists have become
21 more involved with fleshed remains, burnt remains in
22 the autopsy setting, as well as in the recovery of
23 remains at crime scenes.
24 Q. Where does your expertise, which is forensic
25 anthropology, fit in with the actual exhumations
1 which -- we've heard, as you know, from an
2 archaeologist who's a digger. How does a bone man, an
3 anthropologist, get involved in archaeology?
4 A. Well, it's a crime scene and that's part it.
5 I do have a smattering of archaeology, but, of course,
6 the work that we do in these sorts of teams are great
7 endeavours with many, many people involved, and so I
8 did have very good archaeologists working with for me
9 and with me, Becky Saunders from the United States,
10 Fronimis Coso [phoen] From Guatemala, and, you know,
11 various people with other skills. So they could
12 compensate my lack of certain skills in areas.
13 Q. You mentioned that part of your job as an
14 anthropologist was the examination of bones, bone
15 trauma. How did you work with the forensic
16 pathologist? Can you explain what a forensic
17 pathologist does and how you connect with it, realising
18 that we're going to be hearing from some pathologists
20 A. A forensic pathologist is a medical doctor.
21 I'm a Ph.D, Doctor of Philosophy. The forensic
22 pathologist, of course, performs autopsy examinations
23 and makes the medical opinion as to the cause of
24 death. But the pathologist routinely deals with
25 fleshed remains, and more and more as the flesh
1 disappears and the bones come forth, the anthropologist
2 is more involvement. So we actually compliment each
3 other. For skeletal remains, we may assist the
4 pathologist in the interpretation of trauma, and then
5 they take this information from us and they incorporate
6 it into their determination of the cause of death. But
7 for the most part, what we're doing is reconstructing
8 fragmented bones, putting them back together,
9 determining the sex, the age, stature of them, the
10 bones themselves.
11 Q. Now, can you give us a little bit, just a
12 brief rundown on what you were doing in Rwanda before
13 coming to Bosnia? A little bit about those projects.
14 A. Okay. In September 1995, I did an assessment
15 for the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda, for
16 ICTR, to determine what -- of the Prosecution's
17 priority of graves would be, lend themselves to
18 excavation and forensic investigation.
19 Q. Go ahead.
20 A. And then subsequently, from the 15th of
21 December through the 22nd of February, 1995/1996, we
22 excavated and did the examinations on a large grave in
23 Kibuye, Rwanda, a grave that contained or involved 496
24 individuals, and then another smaller forensic
25 investigation was gone in Kigali, Rwanda. At that
1 time, I was the forensic advisor or the ICTR.
2 Q. Then in the summer of 1995, did you come over
3 to be in charge of the exhumations for Bosnia?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Now, as a person that was associated with the
6 pathologists, can you give us a little background?
7 We've heard about the archaeology site and the
8 procedures there, but can you give us a little
9 background on what happens once the bodies arrive to
10 the morgue, especially in relation to your expertise as
11 we'll leave some of the medical information for the
13 A. I think, as the Court appreciates, at this
14 time the bodies arrive in varying conditions.
15 Sometimes they're parts of bodies, sometimes they're
16 skeletons, and sometimes they're bodies with a
17 significant amount of flesh on them.
18 Once the bodies -- the bodies are removed
19 from our refrigerated containers from the numbered,
20 sealed bags that they were regularly placed in, and
21 they're photographed as they're opened, and then the
22 pathologist and the radiologist look through the
23 remains and pass them under a fluoroscope to find any
24 projectiles that might be in the remains.
25 Then the pathologist proceeds with their
1 autopsy examination, removing clothing, evidence, and
2 doing their external and internal examination.
3 The evidence then is passed on to evidence
4 technicians and photographers for their processing.
5 At that time, if it's a skeletal remains, the
6 anthropologist gets involved relatively soon doing an
7 inventory and cleaning the bones that are necessary for
8 us to make our determinations, or reconstructing
9 bones. If it's a fleshed remains, then at the behest
10 of the pathologist, we'll do any reconstruction that
11 they wish us to do, and then we have a set group of
12 bones which we do remove from the remains and clean and
13 use for our estimations of sex and age, et cetera.
14 Q. In the situation where you just have body
15 parts and it's difficult or impossible to tell from
16 that part alone how many people are involved, do you
17 determine a minimum number of people from the various
18 body parts?
19 A. Yes. That was an issue in a few instances in
20 1996, but it has become a great issue since then.
21 Q. All right. So I think --
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honours, Mr. Jose Pablo,
23 who has dealt with these issues previous where there
24 were many more numbers involved, I think we would like,
25 at this point, to leave the explanation of the minimum
1 number calculation to him. Otherwise, we'll be
2 repeating ourselves, and it is more important to
3 Mr. Pablo, but of course, Dr. Haglund can discuss that
4 should the need arise.
5 Q. Now, could you -- we have your report which
6 is Exhibit number 207/1, and could you open that to
7 page 32 and place that on the ELMO so that we can see
9 Now, you were speaking generally of some of
10 the work that you do in the morgue. Can you explain
11 that photograph and how it would have been incorporated
12 into your work?
13 A. Yes. This is a fragmented cranium or skull
14 minus the lower jaw, and what we've done here is placed
15 the pieces together and glued them together. You can
16 see there are multiple fragments. Here's one, here's
17 one here, here's one here, and et cetera. By
18 conjoining these fragments and putting them together,
19 then the pathologist can look at this gunshot wound,
20 and tell its sequence relative to other trauma that
21 might be in the cranium and to get a better idea of
22 entrance wounds versus exit wounds, et cetera. It
23 helps them in their analysis.
24 Q. So an anthropologist would have assembled all
25 these various parts and glued it together?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And can you point out on this particular
3 exhibit where you see particular wounds, and describe
4 how you know that?
5 A. Well, this is an entrance gunshot wound. If
6 we could just see the back side of it in a good
7 picture, you would see that the back side of it and the
8 direction the bullet is proceeding has a bevelled
9 contour around the circumference of the entrance wound.
10 Q. And you're referring to the skull on the
11 upper part of the frame, the small hole?
12 A. Yes, to the small hole here. Then there was
13 some other trauma that went on in this, and not seeing
14 the front, I can't appreciate what it is. But the
15 fracture lines emanating from this gunshot wound ran
16 like in a piece of glass. If you have one trauma to a
17 piece of glass, the lines radiate out. If you have a
18 subsequent trauma, the lines would radiate out but stop
19 at the line made by the first trauma. And you see this
20 kind of phenomena here.
21 Q. And the bottom photograph, is that the same
23 A. That's the same skull, and it shows the exit
24 wound derived from the trauma on the other side of
25 the -- at the entrance.
1 Q. And this is the kind of thing you do to
2 assist the pathology in the cause of death?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. All right. Well, let's get you to Bosnia in
6 You did a series of exhumations of mass
7 graves, and let's start with the first grave you did.
8 Can you tell us a little bit about that and what you
9 were able to conclude from the excavation?
10 A. This is looking westerly down a dirt road
11 that runs through the Cerska Valley here. We have a
12 high embankment down the northerly side of the road,
13 and we have a slope or an embankment off of the
14 southerly side of the road.
15 Quite briefly, for 30 metres along this road
16 there were bodies that had been placed on the surface
17 and buried for an extension -- for about six metres
18 down the slope. Our investigation of this site first
19 involved looking at the surface. And on this side of
20 the road, more dense, next to the embankment on the
21 northerly side of the road --
22 Q. Could you indicate, when you say "this side
23 of the road", for the record --
24 A. On the northerly side of the road. On the
25 far side of the road from the grave were cartridge
1 casings strewn along the whole 32,5-metre length where
2 the bodies had been deposited.
3 After clearing the vegetation from the grave
4 on the embankment side and collecting these cartridges,
5 we then exhumed 150 male individuals. They were men
6 and boys. They -- 149 of them died of gunshot wounds.
7 The majority died of multiple gunshot wounds, some of
8 them with six, nine, and one with upwards to 20 gunshot
9 wounds. They were all males. Their mean ages range
10 from 14 to men in their 50s. Two of the youngest were
11 between 11 and 15. We do their age assessments as
12 ranges, because it's not an exact science.
13 There were ligatures used to bind many of
14 these individuals' wrists or arms behind their backs.
15 We recovered 48 such ligatures. Twenty-four of those
16 were in place, still holding the arms behind the back,
17 and 23 were associated with other remains.
18 I think the story that this grave tells is
19 that 150 men and boys, maybe all at once or separately,
20 were lined up along this side of the road; that their
21 killers were on the opposite side of the road next to
22 the bank; that they shot these individuals in a
23 spraying-type fashion; that the cartridges were ejected
24 from their weapons, where we found them and collected
25 them from the road. And when this was done -- you
1 can't maybe appreciate it -- but there's a large gouge
2 of earth that has been removed by machine from this
3 side of the road, and that --
4 Q. For the record, that reflects the opposite
5 side of the road on the left side of the photograph?
6 A. On the northern side of the road. It was
7 borrowed from the northern side of the road and used to
8 cover up the bodies that now lay on the surface of the
10 JUDGE RIAD: Excuse me. Can I understand
11 what's the meaning of a sprayed shot, "in a
12 spraying-type fashion" as you expressed? Thank you.
13 A. I'm using the -- coining the words of the
14 pathologist who did this summary, about his assessment
15 that because of the multiple gunshot wounds that
16 covered many, many body areas, that the weapons were
17 sort of just not aimed specifically but sort of just
18 like this [indicates], and he called that spraying.
19 JUDGE RIAD: So they were automatic?
20 A. Yes. It would be automatic weapons, yes.
21 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: And also for clarification I
23 should note that --
24 Q. Dr. Haglund, you work in close connection
25 with the pathologists, and you have reviewed these
1 final summary reports of the pathologists. Unlike
2 Professor Wright, who stopped at the grave, you're
3 dealing with a lot of pathology issues here; is that
5 A. Yes. I collated the reports.
6 Q. And you also assisted the pathologists, as
7 you've shown us, with bone trauma and other issues?
8 A. Yes, with the caveat that I'm not a medical
10 Q. This has been on ongoing debate somewhat
11 between the two professions over the years, has it not?
12 A. Yes, that's right, but I refer to medical
13 doctors for medical opinions.
14 Q. And what do you base your conclusion of the
15 story on? Can you tell us why -- did you see any marks
16 of heavy equipment used, or how do you know that heavy
17 equipment was used to get soil from that side of the
19 A. I think just a magnitude of the soil removed
20 and the reach that would have to have been made to get
21 the soil down, I assume it was a machine. And it's the
22 cartridge casings -- the distribution of the cartridge
23 casings and the fact that as this dirt was removed by
24 the machine from the northern side of the road, many of
25 those cartridge casings were also picked up and
1 included in the fill of the grave, along with the
2 bodies, and subsequently there have been some
3 connections made, I believe, with those.
4 Q. Were you able to tell from the wire ligatures
5 whether or not -- well, you've got 150 bodies total and
6 about 48 wore ligatures. Were they bunched together,
7 the 48, or were they separated throughout the grave?
8 Can we make anything of those details?
9 A. The individuals with the ligatures were
10 randomly disbursed in the grave above, below, and in
11 between other bodies. As the individuals were shot,
12 they either fell over the side or subsequently were
13 rolled over the side. So many of them rolled further
14 down the hill, where they piled up, and some of them
15 still remained on the hillside.
16 Q. So is it your opinion that this is a primary
18 A. This is a primary, undisturbed body disposal
19 site. I think as the previous witness pointed out,
20 technically it's not a grave, no hole was dug, but it
21 is a repository with human remains, yes.
22 Q. And what do you base your conclusion that
23 it's not disturbed on?
24 A. The remains were relatively intact, as we
25 would assume they would be, if they were deposited in
1 that location as fleshed remains.
2 This was a grave where decomposition was
3 accelerated more than we would expect in deeper graves
4 that are more protected. The decomposition was
5 accelerated for many reasons.
6 One, it was a shallow grave. This surface of
7 the embankment was exposed to the sun for much of the
8 day, which warmed up that shallow environment and then
9 accelerated the decomposition process.
10 The cover -- the soil and the cover was
11 relatively gravelly, and so that it was relatively
12 loosely compacted also. And also located on a slope
13 like this, the drainage was very good, which also kept
14 the remains more dry than they would if they would have
15 been on a flat surface and other environments that
16 we've experienced in Bosnia. So many of the remains
17 were well advanced in decomposition and partially
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: And for the record, this
20 exhibit is 16/3.
21 Q. Let's go to the next exhumation, and that was
22 the exhumation known at Nova Kasaba 96, since it was --
23 excuse me. Nova Kasaba, yes, 96.
24 You have put what has been marked Exhibit
25 14/4 on, the only piece of photography we're using for
1 this particular grave. But again can you tell us the
2 results of the excavation and the results of your
3 examination of the bodies?
4 A. Just to orient ourselves, this is the main
5 road, highway. We're looking at two fields, one field
6 to the right and one field to the left [indicates].
7 It's separated by a hedge row of bushes. You see some
8 light-coloured areas. These are areas of disturbance.
9 Q. And that's -- if you could just note for the
10 record where the arrows are pointed in KS-1 and 2.
11 A. Yes, and the arrows are pointing and the
12 letters indicate four graves, NSK -- Nova Kasaba grave
13 number 1, grave number 2, grave number 3 and grave
14 number 4. You can see the location of each of these
15 graves is marked by a smear of disturbed surface soil;
16 a very large smear on this side to the right, and to
17 the left of the hedge, a more medium-size smear, and a
18 very small smear up here.
19 Nova Kasaba grave 1 was a shallow grave. It
20 contained seven men. Nova Kasaba 2 was a deeper grave,
21 about one and a half metres. It contained 19 men.
22 Nova Kasaba 3 contained six men. And when I'm saying
23 "men", men and boys, basically. I should correct
24 myself. And Nova Kasaba 4 contained one elderly man.
25 The seven individuals in the grave number 1
1 all had their hands bound behind their back. They all
2 died of gunshot wounds. Of the 19 males recovered from
3 Nova Kasaba 2, six -- 13 of the 19 had their hands
4 bound behind their backs. The six -- there were six
5 males in Nova Kasaba 3. Five of the six had their
6 hands bound behind their back. And Nova Kasaba 4, as I
7 previously stated, was a single individual and a
9 In summary, all the individuals were males.
10 The mean age ranged from about 17 to men in their 50s.
11 Thirty-two of the thirty-three individuals died of
12 gunshot wounds, and there was a real bias towards
13 gunshot wounds, multiple gunshot wounds, and gunshot
14 wounds in the head. The 33rd individual died of
15 massive head wounds, but according to the pathologist's
16 report, he was unable to determine the instrument that
17 caused that death but that the head wounds, he was
18 sure, was the cause of the death. And 27 of the 33,
19 again, all had their hands bound behind their backs.
20 Q. Were you able to make -- come to any opinion
21 regarding whether or not any of the individuals died or
22 were shot at the location of the grave?
23 A. In grave number NSK-2, the grave containing
24 the 19 individuals, some were in kneeling positions,
25 some were in sitting positions with their heads slumped
1 forward, and these were positions that, in my
2 experience, would not be -- we would not encounter by
3 individuals being thrown into a grave. It would be my
4 opinion that they most likely were in those positions
5 in those graves and shot in the grave.
6 Q. And were you able to determine whether these
7 graves were dug by hand or by machine?
8 A. They were relatively shallow graves, but the
9 smear, the disturbed area, if we were digging graves by
10 hand, I would expect -- for instance, the Nova Kasaba 1
11 grave was just probably two times bigger than the
12 pointer size [indicates], and the grave Nova Kasaba 2
13 maybe covered three or four times the pointer size
14 [indicates]. If they were dug by hand, I think we
15 would see localised activity in the area where the
16 grave was dug. The smear to me indicates the driving
17 around of machinery, the movement. And this is -- gets
18 relatively damp, and the first, oh, possibly several
19 centimetres of this soil is muddy and churned up from
20 this activity, and I believe that's what we're seeing.
21 We also see tracks going into the area from the road.
22 Q. Yes. What is that? Were you able to make
23 out what that big area of disturbed earth is above
24 NKS-4? It's not where the grave is pointed, but just
25 above it there is a very large area relative of --
1 A. Well, that's a relatively steep embankment,
2 and if a machine was used, it would have had to slide
3 down there and enter it that way, I believe.
4 Q. And were you able to see any indications
5 whether this was a primary or a disturbed grave?
6 A. I'm sorry, these are all primary, undisturbed
7 graves. And by "primary", I'm meaning that these are
8 the graves that the individuals were placed in or were
9 killed in and is the original position -- at the
10 original location at which they were buried.
11 Q. Let's talk about the next graves which were
12 referred to as Lazete, and we now refer to that as
13 Lazete in the area of Orahovac. And the first
14 photograph is 20/2, and if you could put that on the
15 ELMO and tell us the story of that grave.
16 A. Here we have an overview of the area of the
17 Lazete graves. There's a main road that's traversing
18 up from the right-hand corner towards the centre --
19 Q. Excuse me, Dr. Haglund. We need to pull
20 that -- look at it on your screen and centre it.
21 A. I can see it just fine. Thank you.
22 There's a road that traverses towards the
23 centre of the picture from the upper right-hand
24 corner. That's the main road. We see the label
25 "Lazete 1" here, and this was noted by -- was
1 designated by the original investigators that looked at
2 the site. So this is a separate grave. We're
3 interested in the grave that comes along a small rural
4 road, crosses under a raised railroad track underpass,
5 and is located in a field behind that raised area. So
6 now we're looking at a large area of disturbance that
7 directly abuts and is alongside a wooded hillside which
8 is this dark area off to the right of the picture.
9 Q. That's designated --
10 A. LZ-2.
11 Q. -- in the photograph. Thank you. Okay.
12 And what can you tell us about this particular
13 excavation and what did you find?
14 A. This particular excavation was actually
15 located in a drainage area where it had a very high
16 water-table and where water ran down from the fields
17 and the hills above it.
18 Q. Why don't we look at the next exhibit, 20/8,
19 for that explanation.
20 A. From this view now, we can see the raised
21 railroad track bed, the underpass which you need to
22 access this site from. The road, the little road to
23 the farm, passes across the midline of the section
24 running left to right here.
25 We can see a large disturbed area here
1 towards the centre on the right-hand side of the
2 picture, this darker coloured area, and this is an
3 area -- the area of disturbance that we saw on the
4 former aerial imagery.
5 Q. Could we go to the next exhibit, which you
6 should have before you, and could you tell us the
7 exhibit number as it's marked on there? It should be
8 "OTP," on the back.
9 A. It says "IT9833T."
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just one second. I'm sorry.
11 A. Okay. I'll do it myself now, thank you. OTP
12 Exhibit 213.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY:
14 Q. And Exhibit 213 is just out of your report,
15 is it not?
16 A. That's correct. It's an overall map that
17 shows the Lazete 2 general area. To orient you,
18 running from the top to the right here is the railroad
19 embankment; again, the field road; and we're looking at
20 the disturbed area that's outlined in blue towards the
21 lower left-hand area of the disturbed area that we saw
22 in the aerial imagery.
23 You'll see one, two, three rectangular
24 trenches which were test trenches that were dug to
25 locate the graves. Then you see two red localised
1 areas, and those are the graves we've designated
2 Lazete 2A, and Lazete 2B.
3 Q. Now, let me ask you, do those reflect two
4 separate pits or can you explain that?
5 A. We were unable to determine if this was a
6 large trench that was made to deposit the remains in or
7 if they were two separate pits. It was an unseasonably
8 wet year in 1996, and we ran into the rainy season,
9 which is not the best conditions under which to do some
10 of this work, and so it did, I think, obscure some of
11 our findings. So the answer to that question is no,
12 that's ambiguous to us at this point.
13 Q. And can you explain those two designations
14 and what they reflect?
15 A. Yes. As I just said, grave A is what we call
16 in our report LZ, Lazete 2, grave A; and Lazete 2,
17 grave B.
18 Q. Why don't you tell us about each one.
19 A. If I might show the next exhibit. Would that
20 be possible?
21 Q. Certainly.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. And that's Exhibit 214.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if the ELMO could focus
25 on the photograph and not at the drawing underneath.
1 Focus and maybe blow-up on the photograph. So if we
2 could have that photograph so it's taking up the whole
3 screen, so we get a bit of a blow-up on it, please.
4 Zero down on that photograph.
5 A. It's relatively blurred, but ...
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just go down towards it and
7 centre it in there. It should be able to fill the
8 screen. There we go. Okay. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
9 Back it off a little bit so we just get the
11 A. Okay. That's excellent.
12 This is looking down into the grave pit.
13 It's about a 5 by 6 metre area or mass of bodies.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY:
15 Q. Is this A or B?
16 A. This is LZ-2A. You can see individual
17 remains, this individual here lying face up, for
18 instance, and basically underneath this whole area are
19 bodies below it. This is just the top layer of bodies
20 before they've been fully exposed and removed.
21 This mass of bodies extends to the floor of
22 the grave, which is approximately 2 1/2 to 3 metres
23 deep, depending on what area you measured it.
24 It contained 112 individuals. These
25 individuals were relatively complete remains. This
1 whole site was -- contained these two separate
2 assemblages of bodies, A and B. It contained one
3 skeletal remains on the surface, and it also contained
4 about 98 separate units of body parts, parts ranging
5 all the way from pieces of bodies, like an arm or
6 whatever, to bones, individuals bones and fragments of
7 bones, and their distribution is quite telling as we go
8 on. But this was a one single basic pile of bodies of
9 112 individuals.
10 The next pile of bodies or group of bodies in
11 the grave, LZ-2B, is significantly different. And
12 that's Exhibit OTP 215. We'll need to back down again
13 but not right now.
14 What we see here, LZ-2A, was an undisturbed
15 primary grave. Here we're looking at a disturbed
16 primary grave. In this particular grave, what we're
17 seeing is groups of bodies that are separated from each
18 other. We have a group here.
19 If we could just back off, I think, a little
20 bit so I can get the little schematic up in the corner
21 that would be helpful. Thank you so much. I'll move
22 this down.
23 This little shaded area, the shaded areas up
24 here, represent isolated islands of human remains or
25 bodies. So "A" would be this isolated island in the
1 centre towards the top. "B" would be this isolated
2 group of remains here, and on and on. We have one here
3 towards the left.
4 And what we see here also is that along the
5 margins, between spaces there is no bodies at all. And
6 along these margins, for instance, the lower boundary
7 of "A," we see a relatively straight line. And what we
8 have here is the evidence of bodies having been removed
9 from the grave, removed with a machine, most likely a
10 backhoe, a machine that would reach down into the body
11 mass, encounter it, press them into the ground,
12 transect whatever bodies it happened to encounter, and
13 pull them out of the grave. So in these voids or empty
14 spaces between where the bodies are, bodies have been
16 I might also point out the discolouration of
17 the soil, this bluish/green discolouration that
18 contrasts with the surrounding soil, and that's from
19 leaching of decomposition products around these -- this
20 group of bodies, phenomena that's been referred to, I
21 think, previously.
22 But if we might look closer at that
23 individual who is extending out into the areas that the
24 bodies have been removed from --
25 Q. I think we have in the next exhibit a little
1 better shot of that.
2 A. Yes. This is remains number 6, and then
3 subsequently we'll look at remains number 13 and 14,
4 which are under number 6.
5 This is Exhibit 216. To help you appreciate
6 this, this is a belt, and these are the lower
7 extremities and pants of this individual.
8 Q. For the record, can we show that he's talking
9 about the body marked number 6.
10 A. And his legs extend into the body mass
11 towards the upper part of the picture.
12 Below we see his waist and his chest, and we
13 see about the area of the breast that this body has
14 been transected, basically chopped apart, and that the
15 upper part, the arms and the neck and the head have,
16 been removed from the grave.
17 All along these sharp margins in this grave
18 that separate groups of bodies from areas where bodies
19 are not present, we see this phenomena; transected
20 bodies from this removal process.
21 When body number 6 is removed -- it was
22 positioned right here between body 17 and 13 -- we find
23 the same -- a similar phenomena for these bodies. In
24 this case, this man's head and upper part of his body
25 is still in the body group, and his legs have been
1 severed as the body removal process removed the bodies
2 on the other side of him.
3 Q. So could you give us the basic conclusions as
4 for numbers and blindfolds for the people in the
5 primary undisturbed grave, Lazete 2A?
6 A. Well, the undisturbed grave LZ-2A, had
7 112 individuals, and they were all males. They -- I
8 haven't separated these all out. I think I have them
9 as a composite. A hundred and twenty-seven of these
10 165 bodies from this site -- incidentally, I neglected
11 to mention that LZ-2B has a minimum number mostly -- a
12 minimum number of 52 people. Fifty-two plus the 112,
13 plus the 1 skeletal remains that we found at Lazete 2
14 was the total of 165 individuals. Their ages range
15 between 16 and 45 years of age.
16 A signature of Lazete 2A and B were that
17 there were a total of 104 blindfolds recovered from
18 these remains. Seventy-seven blindfolded individuals
19 were removed from grave A, and 26 or 50 per cent of the
20 individuals in grave B were blindfolded.
21 Q. How about cause of death?
22 A. Well, the cause of death, 158 of these 165
23 individuals died of gunshot wounds, in seven cases, the
24 cause of death was undetermined, and multiple gunshot
25 wounds accounted for wounds in 108 of these
2 Q. Okay. Now, let's go to your -- the next
3 grave site, which you refer to as Pilica, and now we
4 call it -- refer to it as the Branjevo Military Farm.
5 And you're now going to Exhibit 24/4.
6 A. This aerial imagery depicts a view of the
7 buildings of the farm proper and surrounding fields.
8 The buildings are labelled -- next to the road here,
9 and they're at the mid-right of the image. Then if we
10 proceed towards the left, past an area of brush,
11 through the field, we come to a -- labelled a burial
12 area, and that's the location of the grave at the
13 Pilica grave site.
14 The grave measured 28 by approximately
15 5 metres, and it ranged from 2 1/2 to 3 metres in
17 Q. Could you go to the next exhibit, 217. It
18 gives us a shot of the sort of finished product of the
19 empty grave.
20 A. If that could be sharpened. We're looking
21 from one end of the grave to the other, and with these
22 individuals standing on the floor of the grave, you can
23 appreciate the depth of the grave, which is about in
24 excess of 3 metres, about 3 metres. You might also
25 appreciate -- I don't know if the colour shows up --
1 again this discolouration that's associated with the
2 decomposing flesh in this environment and soil here.
3 Although the grave space itself was 28 metres
4 long, only 14 per cent of it was occupied, the floor
5 space, was occupied by a pile of human remains, a
6 minimal number of 132 individuals.
7 Also, throughout this fill were some body
8 parts. This gets a little complicated, but the grave
9 itself had 53 complete individuals in this group of
10 bodies, 23 nearly complete individuals, and another --
11 let's see -- hundred and -- over a hundred body parts.
12 Actually, about 170 body parts.
13 To give you an idea of what we were labelling
14 as body parts, ten individuals were individuals that
15 were missing their heads; five body part units were
16 just upper extremities; sixteen were individuals who
17 were transected at the torso, and so on; and then there
18 were individual bones and bone fragments.
19 Q. Would you go to the next exhibit, 212. That
20 also gives us an idea of the size and scope of the
21 grave. Tell us a little bit about what this is. We
22 need to back it off again.
23 A. Well this depicts some of the -- actually, we
24 could back off a tad more and we can see the lip of the
25 grave. You can see the workers down in the grave, and
1 what you can see above is the archaeologist who is
2 doing the mapping, and at this time, the
3 laser-generated mapping equipment is hitting a target
4 in this pole, and we're actually delineating a body.
5 We're measuring where the head is, where the knees are,
6 a procedure that Dr. Wright has previously mentioned.
7 One of the things you need to appreciate, I
8 think, with these remains that are in deep graves that
9 are for the most part fleshed, in fact, so well fleshed
10 that they actually have pristine tattoos, its a very
11 preservative environment in deep graves, but bodies are
12 very pliable, but they're very chaotic and entangled
13 amongst each other, with arms underneath another body
14 and maybe legs overlapped with another body. So
15 it's -- to remove them from the grave involves maybe
16 reaching beneath several bodies to extract an arm and a
17 hand, and rolling the body over so that another body
18 could be moved out of the way and so on, and this is
19 the process by which we need to extract them. It's not
20 as simple as one might envision with a skeleton that's
21 just lying there and you can expose the bones and then
22 remove it. It's a wicked game of Pick-up Sticks, only
23 the Pick-up Sticks, if you've ever played that
24 childhood game, have arms and legs.
25 Q. Could you go to the next exhibit and could
1 you explain that? It's 218. If we could zero in on
2 the top half of that exhibit. Can you explain what
3 this represents?
4 A. Well, this was a questionable luxury of
5 having a very damp environment, that we were able to
6 expose many bodies. Of course, when bodies are so
7 entangled, you need to expose several surrounding a
8 particular individual because one individual may be
9 entwined with other individuals around them.
10 But we see, looking down into the grave, the
11 top of an assemblage of approximately 130 persons. We
12 can see, for instance, the individual labelled
13 number 3. He's lying sort of on his side with his face
14 facing towards the upper part of the picture, so you
15 can see his hands are bound behind his back.
16 We have another individual over here that's
17 bound, another one down here. All told in this group
18 of remains, 77 people had their hands bound behind
19 their back. To give you a little -- the ages of these
20 people actually -- of course, they're all males, and I
21 won't give -- when you're dealing with minimal numbers,
22 sometimes you have more males than you do have bodies,
23 and sometimes you have more causes of death than you
24 have bodies, because you may have had causes of death
25 for different parts and you don't know what parts go
2 Q. Is this the only grouped mass of bodies in
3 that whole grave?
4 A. Yes. Like I say, it occupied -- this group
5 of bodies occupied the far extreme of one end of the
6 grave and the rest of the grave is empty.
7 Just to appreciate a little bit more of the
8 ligatures, if I may, this is also a picture that was
9 previously shown, I believe.
10 Q. This is Exhibit 219. If we could focus on
11 the top half of that photograph.
12 A. That's correct. You can see in this case,
13 this is an individual subsequently identified, and he's
14 lying on his left side, you can see, and you can see
15 his hands are bound at the wrists. This is an
16 individual that has an artificial leg, and here's his
17 hands here, bound behind his back.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. Then, of course, other parts of the grave had
20 rather gruesome parts of remains. If I might just show
21 this last exhibit, 211. This is the kind of body parts
22 that we were finding in the grave, severed head and
24 Q. Finding these kinds of severed body parts as
25 well as this one clumped group of 132, what kind of
1 conclusions did you reach about whether this was a
2 disturbed or undisturbed? Can you tell us about your
3 analysis there?
4 A. I think it was ambiguous. One would think --
5 Q. I think we can turn the -- could you take
6 that off the --
7 A. Yes, let's do that. I think we're done,
8 anyway, with the photographs.
9 One of the questions that arises with these
10 graves is why there is such a big grave space and so
11 little of the grave occupied? That's a question I
12 tried to answer, really not coming up with much
14 The group of bodies in the pile --
15 Q. Excuse me, Dr. Haglund. I've just been
16 informed by my legs and by the time and colleagues it
17 may be a good time for a break.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank
19 you, Mr. McCloskey. I was going to draw your attention
20 to this. I think that we need a break, a 20-minute
21 break now.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.40 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 1.04 p.m.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The hearing
25 is resumed. Mr. McCloskey, you may continue, please.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Dr. Haglund, could you briefly, just to bring
3 us back to where we were, summarise the contents of
4 this grave, where the clusters were, where the body
5 parts were, and then, as you were getting into, give us
6 your analysis of what you believe that shows us?
7 A. Yes. As I previously mentioned, this was a
8 very large grave, 28 metres long, and at one far
9 extremity the major portion of the remains of 132
10 minimal number of individuals was located. Also in
11 this grave, in parts of it were 188 -- parts of 188
12 other human remains; bones, fragments, heads, et
13 cetera. The pile, the one massive body, did have
14 partial remains in them, mixed with them, and also in
15 this particular mass of bodies there was vegetation and
16 there was a soil intermixed with and amongst them.
17 The question then is: "Was or was not the
18 grave disturbed?" It's a large area. Only a
19 fraction -- 14 per cent of the area of floor space of
20 the grave was utilised. If it was not disturbed, we
21 need to explain how bodies got dismembered and pulled
22 apart. One possible explanation could be that the
23 bodies were dismembered, many of them, in the process
24 of putting them in the grave.
25 The soil and vegetation intermixed with the
1 remains in the major body mass would indicate to me
2 that the bodies were probably placed into the grave by
3 being scooped off of the ground surface in the field,
4 where they had been killed, and maybe a front-end
5 loader machine, and then loads of those bodies were
6 then driven into the grave and dumped into that pile.
7 It's possible, during that kind of process, that maybe
8 in the scooping up of the bodies from where they lay,
9 they could have tumbled and maybe been torn apart.
10 That's possible. Then that might explain how, in the
11 major body mass, you would have complete bodies and
12 then parts of bodies, and that other parts of bodies
13 may have been dropped along the way as the grave was
14 being made.
15 The other possibility is that, of course,
16 that the grave was disturbed. We would still have an
17 explanation for the parts of bodies in the major mass
18 of the body mass. In this loading process, this one
19 single group of bodies does not have the strict
20 delineation where, you know, it looked like somebody
21 had removed bodies and then cut them where there was a
22 margin, as we did at the Lezete grave. But it's
23 conceivable, like at the Lezete grave, maybe we had a
24 large trench and piles of bodies next to each other,
25 separated. That's another possibility, and that if the
1 grave was then disturbed, that that mass of bodies that
2 we did find were left behind and that the parts of
3 bodies that we found were residual being left behind
4 from the disturbing effort. And I think it's a bit
5 ambiguous. Other information I've heard lends me to
6 believe that it is a disturbed grave.
7 Q. So at the time you were writing your report,
8 you didn't have access to the information regarding the
9 secondary graves, their analysis and --
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. [Inaudible] that information?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Now, we do have the cluster of bodies in the
14 bottom of that grave, and I just want to ask you, if
15 you can, if we have a concentration of bodies similar
16 to the cluster that we actually see in the bottom of
17 that grave and that concentration is throughout that
18 grave, is that grave big enough to hold 1.200 people at
19 that concentration that we see?
20 A. Well, this is a rosary of "if"s, and it's
21 rather speculative. If -- if the complete floor of the
22 grave was packed with a density and a height of the
23 bodies that we found in the one body mass, yes, it
24 could hold seven to nine hundred people. But realise
25 the grave was three metres deep. It could hold much
1 more. But that is -- I think that tiptoes into
2 speculation, which I don't feel I would like to warrant
3 an opinion on.
4 Q. Now, most of your testimony has been
5 regarding the graves and the excavation, but as a
6 forensic anthropologist, you also supervised the morgue
7 work and spent a lot of time helping the pathologists
8 in actually going through the anthropology work,
9 determining sex, age, minimum numbers; is that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I am, Your Honours, not
12 going to have Dr. Haglund tell us how an anthropologist
13 determines sex and age at this point, of course, and
14 would save that for Jose Pablo, although he can
15 certainly answer that question if anyone would like to
16 know about it.
17 Q. Also, at the end of this very long summer,
18 did one or two of your young colleagues have some
19 criticism regarding your supervision of the archaeology
21 A. Absolutely, yes.
22 Q. What was that about?
23 A. Well, there was some criticism raised
24 regarding the perceived rate and quality of the work.
25 Basically, that was the crux of it.
1 The ICTY convened an expert panel to look at
2 and interview these individuals, to look at their
3 criticisms, and the expert panel's opinion was that the
4 criticisms really had nothing to do with the quality,
5 did not jeopardise the scientific quality of the work,
6 and they added that it wasn't surprising to them to
7 have brought together people from disparate lands and
8 disparate backgrounds and experiences and not have some
9 different perceptions of how things should go.
10 Q. And more significantly, were there -- well,
11 did anyone -- were there any complaints regarding your
12 work at the morgue and your anthropology work?
13 A. Not that I'm aware of, but there was a
14 complain raised regarding the supervising pathologists
15 and the autopsy reports.
16 Q. And were those allegations that the
17 supervising pathologists, in some of the reports,
18 actually reviewed the reports and findings of other
19 pathologists and, in some cases, changed the cause of
20 death without notifying the underlying pathologist that
21 did the report?
22 A. Yes, I think in an effort to make things
23 uniform. But, yes, I think it was proven he did not
24 consult the other pathologists. And the panel, the
25 independent expert panel, also reviewed this issue, and
1 before they had reviewed it, I believe ICTY did take
2 all of the original autopsy reports, the autopsy -- the
3 ones that had been amended back to the original
4 pathologist, to have them review it, to make sure that
5 the autopsy reports were consistent -- the opinions
6 were consistent with their original opinions and to
7 verify that. And again the expert panel thought that
8 that was an appropriate way to handle that potential
9 misunderstanding and that there was nothing that would
10 jeopardise the scientific validity of findings because
11 of it.
12 Q. But were you aware that the expert panel did
13 conclude that it was inappropriate for the chief
14 pathologist to change the reports of others without
15 consulting them?
16 A. That's correct.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I have no
18 further questions.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,
20 Mr. McCloskey.
21 Professor Haglund, you are now going to
22 answer questions put to you by Mr. Visnjic on behalf of
23 the Defence.
24 Mr. Visnjic, you have the floor.
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,
1 Mr. President.
2 Cross-examined by Mr. Visnjic:
3 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
4 Professor, could you tell us, in your
5 opinion, whether the number of identified bodies is
6 small, and what is the reason for this small number of
8 A. I've not been appraised of the actual numbers
9 of the identifications exactly, I've not been following
10 that issue, although I know it's proceeded far beyond
11 what we originally had anticipated. But, yes, it's
12 understandable to me that there are so few personal
13 identifications if you require scientific rigorousness
14 for positive identification.
15 We're dealing -- if I just might give a
16 hypothetical. If we have a small grave in a local
17 community and we knew who should be buried in that
18 grave, that's one kind of problem. It's easier to
19 solve. But if you have potentially several thousand
20 individuals and they are scattered way away from their
21 home territory and they end up in graves that you do
22 not know which grave who ended up in, then it becomes a
23 great feat to interview members of 7.000 families to
24 find them, in the first place, and then to put together
25 a database, and then to find information enough on the
1 bodies to help one identify them.
2 One of the problems in these situations, of
3 course, is that circumstantially, you may have leads to
4 a couple of identities, but that's not a positive, to
5 find somebody's name on a piece of paper. That just
6 gives you an idea of who it might be. And the
7 information that's available for these individuals,
8 they are not fingerprints, they are not dental
9 information, they are not hospital information, they
10 are anecdotal information for the most part out of
11 people's memories. And in order to scientifically
12 identify someone, now we're left with the last resource
13 of doing DNA identification. That's expensive and this
14 is a great, large project. I know some progress is
15 being made on it. But, no, I am not surprised at the
16 small number of identifications.
17 Q. Thank you. You have already answered my next
18 question, Professor.
19 Among the bodies, was it possible, and on the
20 basis which parameters, to establish differences
21 between injuries that occurred during the person's
22 lifetime and those that occurred after death?
23 A. Yes, that is possible in many, many
25 Q. Is it also possible to ascertain with
1 certainty, in the specific case of the grave site that
2 you investigated, which were the injuries that may have
3 occurred on the bodies during combat operations and
4 those that would be the result of executions?
5 A. I think one has to look at a mass grave as a
6 contextual situation, and when I look at a grave, for
7 instance Nova Kasaba grave number 4, and I see
8 19 individuals in that grave, and I see that they're
9 all shot, and I see that 13 of those individuals with
10 their hands bound behind their backs, it defies reason
11 to me that they would have been combat soldiers. And
12 it's similar in the other graves.
13 Q. My next question refers to this particular
14 grave at Nova Kasaba, Nova Kasaba 4. I think one body
15 was found there.
16 A. That's correct, yes. It was elderly
17 gentleman who had no determined cause of death. A
18 skeletal remains which is explainable because of the
19 relatively superficial nature of the body compared to
20 the depth of the ones that were fleshed at the same
22 Q. Bearing in mind your previous observation,
23 can one leave open the possibility that that body may
24 have been brought there later on and buried there?
25 A. I think that's possible.
1 Q. During the examination-in-chief, you were
2 describing the grave Lazete 2. It seems to me that you
3 stated, at one point, that at the top of the grave a
4 skeleton was found.
5 A. It was not over the top of the grave. It was
6 a distance from the actual disturbed site, lying by
7 some bushes by the hillside. We recovered it because
8 it would not have been proper for us to leave a body
9 lying out in the open.
10 Whether it was actually connected with that
11 particular incident, I could not tell, it's just that
12 it was in the same location.
13 Q. Thank you. On the basis of the clothing
14 found on the bodies, is it possible to make any
15 conclusions as to whether those bodies were those of
16 civilians or soldiers or, rather, whether persons in
17 civilian clothes had any traces on them which could
18 lead to the conclusion that they were military men
19 clothed in civilian clothing?
20 A. I don't recall any indications on the remains
21 of the people dressed in civilian clothing that they
22 would have been military. However, in the Cerska
23 grave, in, I believe, Lazete, and, I believe, in the
24 Pilica grave, of all the people that were there, there
25 may have been maybe five or so individuals that may
1 have had -- one of them may have had military-type
2 trousers on or maybe a jacket, something like that.
3 But all the individuals were dressed -- of the 480 or
4 so, the majority -- the vast majority, except for less
5 than ten probably, were dressed in civilian clothing.
6 Q. Professor Haglund, is one of the parameters
7 distinguishing injuries in lifetime and after death the
8 colour of the bones, and to what extent is that
9 parameter important?
10 A. Excuse me. Would you repeat that? Are you
11 asking about distinguishing trauma after death or
12 before death; which?
13 Q. The difference between those injuries before
14 death and after death, the bone structure.
15 A. Yes. For dried bones that have been exposed
16 to the soil, yes, you can tell the difference between
17 post-mortem injuries versus injuries that occurred
18 pari-mortem or at or about the time of death.
19 Q. Is a different colour one of the elements?
20 A. Yes, but we're dealing with bones that are
21 completely skeletalised, and for the most part these
22 individuals were not completely skeletalised. Many of
23 them had very much flesh left on them. And one of the
24 indications of trauma that occurred during life, the
25 pathologist will find accompanying gunshot wounds, is
1 haemorrhaging around the areas where the trauma
3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
4 with your indulgence, can I have a minute, please, to
6 Q. Professor Haglund, another question related
7 to the previous one. The time factor when determining
8 whether the injury was post-mortem or before is the
9 time when the injuries were discovered after death,
10 does it play a certain role?
11 A. I think if you're referring to fleshed
12 remains, I would like to defer to the medical experts,
13 the physicians, the pathologists who deal with the
14 fleshed remains, and that's their area of expertise.
15 If you want to talk about bones that are skeletalised
16 and lying in soil, then I'm happy to discourse on
17 those, but I'd like to stay within my area of
19 Q. So we're only talking about bone injuries; is
20 that right?
21 A. In the majority of these cases they had bone
22 injuries, but when they have injuries in the context of
23 flesh, then I think that that's the best area for the
24 pathologist, because some of the questions you're
25 asking me also have to do with the characteristics of
1 the surrounding tissue, the soft tissue, and when the
2 anthropologist looks at bone, we clear the soft tissue
3 away so we can see the surface of the bone, and the
4 soft tissue is not a consideration in our analysis.
5 That's the provenance of the pathologist.
6 Q. On the basis of which indicators has it been
7 established that it was an execution, a murder, in the
8 case of all of the bodies? Could causes of death also
9 include suicide or combat?
10 A. Well, I just would like again to point out
11 that -- I have investigated many suicides. I have
12 never seen an individual with their hands bound behind
13 their back shoot themselves multiple times. Many of
14 these people have multiple injuries which are totally
15 inconsistent with the circumstances of suicide.
16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
17 thank you. I have no further questions.
18 Thank you, Doctor.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
20 very much, Mr. Visnjic.
21 Mr. McCloskey, do you have any
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President. I would
24 merely point out that we also would like Dr. Haglund's
25 CV marked as OPT Exhibit 222, which he has just
1 provided me.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We will
3 deal with all the exhibits at the end.
4 Judge Fouad Riad.
5 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE RIAD: Good morning.
8 A. Good afternoon. Good morning. It's
9 afternoon. It's morning somewhere.
10 JUDGE RIAD: In Dutch there is a word for it,
11 but ...
12 I have been listening carefully to your very
13 clear testimony, and I would like just to have a few
14 explanations. One of them concerns the body parts
15 which you mentioned, because you said that you found
16 once 53 complete individuals and then 170 body parts,
17 either missing heads -- or 10 missing heads,
18 16 transected at the torso, and 5 upper extremities.
19 Now, how -- and you explained that later in some way by
20 saying that it could have been torn apart in the
21 loading or unloading.
22 For instance, the missing heads, ten missing
23 heads, would they be torn apart in the loading or
25 A. It would seem more consistent -- if you mean
1 by "unloading", you mean disturbance of the grave and
2 removal from the grave, then it seems it would be more
3 consistent with that than with the placing of bodies in
4 the grave.
5 JUDGE RIAD: Were they cut in the same way?
6 A. No. No. It was very random.
7 JUDGE RIAD: The same thing applies to the
8 transected -- the bodies transected at the torso?
9 A. That's correct. It was very random. If I
10 might refer you -- I don't know what exhibit it is.
11 It's -- the Pilica report, page 60, table 7, might help
12 clarify some of this. Is that possible? Who might I
14 JUDGE RIAD: It's possible. If not, you
15 might explain it.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: I believe you have your
17 report with you.
18 A. Yeah. I have my report with me, and
19 basically this is a table that summarises all
20 264 separate collection units that we took out of the
21 Pilica grave, and it does mention the complete
22 individuals of 53 and the 23 nearly completed
23 individuals, and then it has a part called "Sections of
24 Individuals," and there's ten bodies with missing
25 heads. And if we looked at the individual bodies, the
1 heads would have been taken off at different levels of
2 the neck. It's almost like it got caught in something
3 and then something gave way.
4 I might say that with the fresh bodies, it's
5 harder to transect and separate and dismember the
6 bodies, but with bodies that are more decomposed, they
7 come apart easier, and there are natural places in the
8 skeleton that tend to be weaker and so they come
10 So if we went down here, we have transected
11 torsos; missing upper extremities, lower extremities,
12 and then we have maybe just one arm with a hand; a
13 forearm. So it's very, very random and there's no
14 pattern to it. It's like a mindless machine did it,
15 you know.
16 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you for this answer. My
17 other question, or the last one, you said that there
18 were many causes of death even for one body. What
19 could these causes be?
20 A. These were -- let's see if I can put this in
21 a simple way. We would look at a body part, for
22 instance. Let's say we had a head here and we had a
23 gunshot wound to the head, and it's one of these body
24 parts. We can say that that's a lethal gunshot wound.
25 So that person could have died of that gunshot wound.
1 But let's say we also had a torso and we had multiple
2 gunshot wounds of the torso. That torso, that person
3 whom that torso would have belonged to, could have died
4 of those causes.
5 Now, if those are two different people, they
6 represent the parts of two different people, we have a
7 cause of death for one person if we can put them
8 together. But if we can't put them together, we have
9 two causes of death for two body parts that could
10 belong to the same person.
11 JUDGE RIAD: Because when you said two causes
12 of death I thought one cause would be the cholera,
13 another would be a gunshot, the third would be cut
14 throat, but it is all being shot?
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE RIAD: They are shot everywhere.
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
19 A. Thank you.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
21 very much, Judge Fouad Riad.
22 Judge Wald.
23 JUDGE WALD: Professor Haglund, in your first
24 account of the Cerska Valley graves, you talked about a
25 likely scenario being that the 150 men and boys were
1 lined up along the side after road and then they were
2 shot by their killers from across the road, so that
3 they all had gunshots. Some had 6 to 9, and you said
4 one had 20. I'm wondering, even under spray shooting,
5 under what circumstances would one of these people have
6 gotten shot 20 times? I thought perhaps there was a
7 hypothesis. Maybe they tried to escape or something?
8 A. [No audible response]
9 Q. Okay.
10 My second question would be whether or not,
11 based on all of your experience with the several grave
12 sites, you would have any explanation or hypothesis of
13 the fact that insofar as I can see, all but Nova
14 Kasaba, you had basically one or in Lazete two grave
15 sites with relatively large numbers of bodies, body
16 parts, at least in one of the two graves. The number
17 has been sometimes 120, 132, numbers like that.
18 In Nova Kasaba you had a total, as I counted
19 up, of 36 bodies but separated into four different
20 grave sites that we saw on the aerial picture. What,
21 if anything, would be the explanation for that?
22 A. There has subsequently been another Nova
23 Kasaba grave that has been exhumed, and I'm not sure
24 how many individuals -- I believe it was less than
25 100. I'm not sure. But I think my experience with
1 homicides, basically, is oftentimes, although there may
2 be some systematic approach to some killings, some are
3 more opportunistic and you have a smaller group rather
4 than a larger group. It's as simple as that.
5 JUDGE WALD: I guess my question is that
6 might be true of the killings, but if you had 36 in the
7 same relatively small area, the fact that they went
8 around and made four grave sites --
9 A. Yes, that's very interesting. They may have
10 appeared at different times. I have no idea.
11 JUDGE WALD: My next questions may either be
12 out of the area of expertise, and if it is, that's
13 fine, or it may draw upon some of your other
14 experiences. But one question which I find puzzling is
15 that in these grave sites which have been disturbed,
16 theoretically meaning that some bodies have been taken
17 out of them, it's hard for me to hypothesise why, if
18 somebody were intent upon concealing or getting rid of
19 the incriminating evidence, they would take out some
20 but leave relatively large numbers still in the grave,
21 which would be, it seems to me, almost as
22 incriminating. I don't know whether anything in your
23 experience would give you any reason to figure that one
25 A. Well, I assure you they don't intend to leave
1 parts of the bodies in the graves. That's my
3 JUDGE WALD: You think it's done in such
4 haste that --
5 A. I think it can be done in haste. I think it
6 could be done at night. It could be done with
7 individuals who were not familiar with where the
8 original graves were and of the extent of those
9 graves. I think there's many, many possible reasonable
10 explanations we could make.
11 JUDGE WALD: Well, those are some reasonable
12 ones. Thank you.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
14 very much, Judge Wald.
15 Professor Haglund, I have two questions.
16 You spoke about the disintegration of bodies,
17 body parts and so on, and you had certain
18 explanations. I would like try out another hypothesis
19 for that list.
20 Is it possible to observe this dismantling of
21 bodies, where the trunk is transected, with regard to
22 the process of killing by gunfire, that the transection
23 of the bodies was related to the process in which they
24 were killed, that is to say, gunfire or whatever?
25 A. Well, if we could just single out, I think,
1 the most obvious exception, to have -- let's say bodies
2 were transected by gunfire and then buried in the
3 grave. It's hard for me to conceive somebody would
4 line them up so that the feet of this one, where they
5 were cut off, matched with the head of this one where
6 it came off. Yes, it's possible, and in these
7 circumstances I don't think it's probable.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My other
9 question: You spoke about, when describing the work
10 and the composition of the teams, that there were
11 people that had come from different countries. The
12 team members had different experiences and different
13 backgrounds. In your opinion, from the viewpoint of
14 results, the results of the work, the scientific
15 results, how do you view this difference? Was it an
16 interesting, substantial difference; was it troubling
17 to the work? How do you see it?
18 A. Well, I think it's a wonderful situation, to
19 tell you the truth. I do a lot of international work,
20 and I prefer to have international teams, and I prefer
21 to have them not just because of their expertise,
22 because I prefer to have different philosophical and
23 cultural views present in a mission.
24 In the main, the pathologists around the
25 world read the same books. They may work under
1 different circumstances, they may not be as well
2 resourced or facilitated as others, but they are sound
3 scientists. And I think to have people, as we did,
4 from all mission countries, Switzerland, France,
5 Denmark, Iceland, Guatemala, Peru, Chile, Canada, Great
6 Britain, Sri Lanka, I think it's what an international
7 tribunal is about. And the way the work is organised,
8 the work is usually -- at least in 1996, and I think
9 it's probably improved since then, the administration
10 of the work, policies and protocols are established.
11 The individuals are briefed on what those protocols
12 are. They are made to adhere to international
13 standards and sometimes above those international
14 standards. The people come and they work as a team,
15 and they work very hard and they do the best job they
16 can, and I think the results are very credible.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Therefore,
18 if I understood you correctly, that is a conclusion --
19 my conclusion, but I would like to hear your opinion.
20 The difference in heterogeneity, does it favour -- does
21 heterogeneity favour truth better than homogeneity,
22 from the scientific viewpoint, of course?
23 A. Well, I don't think that the science is
24 heterogeneous. The science, as I tried to say, is
25 relatively uniform. These people all believe in the
1 same science, they do the same work, they are trained
2 in the same way, they read the same textbooks. The
3 heterogeneity, I think in this sense, is very much, and
4 that comes from different perspectives, different
5 political views, different religions, different
6 cultures. But the science itself and that forensic
7 investigative work is fairly uniform.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have no
9 further questions, Professor. We have come to the end
10 of your testimony.
11 Before you go, I should like to ask
12 Mr. McCloskey where we stand with reference to the
13 documents and the tendering of evidence.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I would like
15 to offer Exhibit 211 through 219, 222, and 206 through
16 209. I believe those reflect all the new exhibits that
17 we've discussed in the last two hours.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
19 Mr. Visnjic, any objections?
20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No,
21 Mr. President, none.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well,
23 then. The exhibits mentioned have been admitted into
25 Professor Haglund, I should just like to
1 express the gratitude of the International Tribunal for
2 having come here and giving us the benefit of your
3 experience, for cooperating with us, and we wish you
4 every success in your future work. Thank you very
6 THE WITNESS: I would like to thank the Court
7 for their patience, yes.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It wasn't
9 patience; it was a pleasure to hear you.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
12 Mr. McCloskey, are we continuing?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. It's now
14 -- Mr. Cayley is ready to put on Jose Pablo Baraybar,
15 one of the anthropologists that worked on more recent
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.
18 Thank you very much. We'll have the pleasure of having
19 Mr. Cayley next.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good
22 afternoon. Can you hear me?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, very well.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You are now
25 going to read the solemn declaration that the usher is
1 going to hand to you. Please go ahead.
2 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
3 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
5 WITNESS: JOSE PABLO BARAYBAR
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be
7 seated. I think that you're quite familiar with the
8 proceedings in the courtroom, so I take it you feel at
9 ease. Yes. Very well. You are now going to answer
10 questions put to you by Mr. Cayley.
11 Please go ahead, Mr. Cayley. You have the
13 MR. CAYLEY: Good afternoon, Mr. President,
14 Your Honours, my learned friends for the Defence.
15 Examined by Mr. Cayley.
16 Q. Mr. Baraybar, good afternoon. Could you
17 please spell your name for the record?
18 A. My name is spelled B-a-r-a-y-b-a-r.
19 Q. And your Christian name is Jose Pablo?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. And you were born on the 1st of October of
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. And you are of Peruvian nationality; is that
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. You have a bachelor's degree in archaeology
3 from the University of San Marcos in Peru; is that
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And I think you have a master of science
7 degree from the University of London, in fact
8 University College London. What was that degree; in
9 what were your studies in?
10 A. It was a master of sciences, including many
11 areas. I would say bio-archaelogy was one of them, the
12 application of tendencies of human biology to
13 archaeological human remains, as well as
14 paleopathology, which is the study of pathological
15 conditions in human remains, and forensics.
16 Q. Just one thing to remember, Mr. Baraybar.
17 Because we're being simultaneously interpreted and
18 because we're speaking the same language, you must try
19 and speak quite slowly, and if you can pause between
20 the end of my question and the beginning of your
21 answer, that will help, particularly as you're using
22 very technical terms.
23 What year was that, your master of science
25 A. 1991 to 1992.
1 Q. Now, you are, I think, a forensic
2 anthropologist. Can you explain to the Court the type
3 of work you do as a forensic anthropologist?
4 A. A forensic anthropologist deals with human
5 remains from forensic contexts, from medical and legal
6 contexts. Forensic anthropologists deal with the
7 recovery and with the analysis of human remains from
8 those kind of contexts. One of the main tasks after
9 recovery of those remains is to ascertain the age, the
10 sex, and the stature, among other things, of the
11 remains recovered.
12 Q. Now, apart from your work for the
13 International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
14 Yugoslavia, where else have you done work as a forensic
16 A. I have worked in Argentina, in Peru, my home
17 country, in Haiti, Ethiopia, Congo, Guatemala. I
18 started to work for the International Criminal Tribunal
19 for Rwanda, where the Forensic Unit was actually
20 created, as a matter of fact, and from there
21 transferred to this Tribunal.
22 Q. Was all of your work as a forensic
23 anthropologist concerned with alleged violations of
24 human rights?
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. I'm correct in saying that from 1996 and
2 including 1998 and 1999, you worked on exhumations in
3 connection with the alleged events in and around
4 Srebrenica; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could just be
7 provided with Exhibit 220 and also, in fact to speed
8 matters up, the anthropological report.
9 Q. Mr. Baraybar, is Exhibit 220, the document
10 marked Exhibit 220, your curriculum vitae?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I simply offer
13 that to the Court. It contains all of Mr. Baraybar's
14 field work, his laboratory work, his manuscripts and
15 publications and papers in conferences and congresses.
16 I don't intend to go through it, but I offer it to the
17 Court as foundation for his evidence.
18 Q. Mr. Baraybar, can you look at the very next
19 document in front of you, which I think is Exhibit 233,
20 and can you identify that document?
21 A. Yes. This is a report I submitted last year
22 and basically describes the anthropological examination
23 of the human remains recovered in this case.
24 Q. Now, am I right in saying that your report is
25 based on both exhumations and anthropology that you
1 supervised and also is based upon the work of others,
2 including, in fact, Dr. Haglund?
3 A. That is correct.
4 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be shown
5 Exhibit 140.
6 Q. Mr. Baraybar, if you could look at the top
7 right-hand corner, there are some red index numbers,
8 and if you could go to page 25. No, it's actually --
9 in fact, if the usher puts my copy on, it will make it
10 easier. I don't want to spend time going through
12 Can that be placed on the ELMO?
13 Mr. Baraybar, did you prepare reports on the
14 anthropological remains of all of the graves that are
15 actually shown on this exhibit?
16 A. That is correct, I did.
17 MR. CAYLEY: And let the record show that
18 that is the ERN number page 25 up in the top right-hand
19 corner of Exhibit 140, which is an exhibit that went
20 through Mr. Manning. And if the usher could turn to
21 the next page.
22 Q. Now, Mr. Baraybar, in the case of the graves
23 that are shaded green, which were exhumed secondary
24 graves, did you also complete the anthropological
25 reports on the remains from those graves?
1 A. That is correct, I did.
2 MR. CAYLEY: And let the record show that the
3 witness has confirmed on page 26, and that's the ERN
4 number in the top right-hand corner of Exhibit 140.
5 Q. Now, you stated in your evidence earlier that
6 the four objectives of anthropological studies of human
7 remains are to determine the sex of the individual, to
8 determine the age, to determine the stature, and I
9 think you also stated to determine the minimum number
10 of individuals within any grave.
11 Now, purely talking in generic terms before
12 we get to any specific grave, can you explain to the
13 Judge how, as an anthropologist, you determine the sex
14 of an exhumed body or human remains from a grave?
15 A. Yes. In principle, the sex of a body will
16 always be determined by an examination of external
17 genitalia. If the body is decomposed beyond
18 recognition or the soft tissues are virtually gone,
19 that is not possible. Therefore, we are left with the
20 bones to be examined.
21 Having a complete skeleton that consists of
22 206 bones, we will be able to look at three different
23 areas. In order of priority, these areas are the
24 pelvic bones that basically are the hip bones, then the
25 skull, and then the long bones.
1 In each of these areas, we will be looking at
2 a set of structures. And if the Prosecution allow me
3 to show some illustrations, I will be able to clarify
5 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be provided
6 with the next three exhibits, which are 224, 225, and
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley,
9 I do apologise for interrupting, but you mentioned
10 page 25, 26 of the 140 exhibit. This is just a small
11 question, but perhaps for identification purposes we
12 should give IT another number, because we have 926 but
13 we also have 1026. But I'm going to leave it up to
14 you, of course, to do that, and I do apologise for
16 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you for that,
17 Mr. President. Because I didn't have the document in
18 front of me, I didn't know the -- I think it's a
19 seven-figure number. There is, in fact, a page 26 in
20 that document, but these were diagrams and the pages
21 were not numbered. In fact, the only page numbers on
22 these two pages, and I'll put them into the record, the
23 first diagram is ERN number 00950925 and the second
24 number is 00950926. So that will make sure that we
25 don't confuse it with the page 26, which is a separate
1 page but has the page number at the foot of the page.
2 Q. Mr. Baraybar, excuse me. If you could first
3 of all show the photograph of the pelvis and explain to
4 the Judges how you would use the pelvic bone to
5 distinguish between a male and a female.
6 A. Right. I am showing Exhibit 224. We're
7 looking at a male pelvis, and in order not to confuse
8 the audience, I will avoid mentioning technical terms
9 or the specific name of each structure. I will just
10 point to you each of the structures we examine in order
11 to determine a sex.
12 If you have a complete and fully articulated
13 pelvic bone such as in this case, you could definitely
14 see there are a number of obvious features that will
15 differentiate this male pelvis from the female pelvis I
16 will show you in a moment. One of the main features is
17 the extent of this area that I'm pointing to here.
18 If you were to have only fragments of this
19 pelvic bone, you would be looking at certain structures
20 such as this one, some of the structures in this area
21 here, primarily related to the angle of these two
22 bones. You would be looking at some other structures
23 not visible on this drawing, that is, basically on the
24 inner aspect of this pubic bone. Then you will be also
25 looking at the position and shape of the sacrum bone;
1 that is, this one.
2 If I may show you now a female pelvis. That
3 is Exhibit 225. You see in this case again that this
4 area is much, much wider in the female, primarily
5 because it is prepared for child-bearing. Again, we
6 would have a look at the same structure I just pointed
7 you a moment ago, and you will see that in this case it
8 is much wider again. We look at this angle here. That
9 again proves to be much wider than the previous
10 example, and to the other structures we cannot actually
11 see in this photograph.
12 If we continue with this observation, I will
13 show you now a picture of a skull, a male skull,
14 Exhibit 226. Again, the structures that will interest
15 us are situated in the frontal bone above the nose,
16 about -- close to the orbits, in the chin, in the area
17 below and behind the ear, and in the area of the back
18 of the head in the occipital bone. An observation of
19 all these factors will allow us to determine sex.
20 I am avoiding to show you a long bone,
21 because that would take us quite a lot of time.
22 However, I would like just to mention that in a long
23 bone, we will primarily observe the rubberstisity
24 [phoen] of the bones and take some measurements that
25 prove to be very different between males and females.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Baraybar. Just as a general
2 question, in a case dealing specifically with your
3 investigations in Srebrenica, where the pelvic bone was
4 not present in mortal remains, how did you describe the
5 sex of the individual?
6 A. We have taken a very conservative approach.
7 In other words, whenever the pelvic bones were not
8 present, sex was not ascertained.
9 Q. So am I right in saying that many of the
10 individuals who are termed as of ascertained sex could
11 have been males?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Now, moving on to the next objective of
14 forensic anthropology, if you could briefly explain to
15 the Judges how you assess the age of an individual from
16 the mortal remains from a grave.
17 A. Well, the assessment of age follow again
18 similar principles as the assessment of sex. A number
19 of structures in the human skeleton change in relation
20 to age. They change in shape, in appearance, in
22 Sex and age are two multi-factorial, if we
23 can call it in this way, analyses. We have to look at
24 different elements in order to reach a conclusion. The
25 problem with aging, and primarily in a forensic
1 context, is that we have to use very robust, very solid
2 techniques that have to be either derived or proved in
3 forensic cases. It is of no use to me to apply a
4 technique that may have been used in a prehistoric
5 population in some country of the world, because I do
6 not know whether the age estimates derived from those
7 population are applicable to the population I'm working
9 In order to avoid this problem, we have
10 chosen two robust techniques derived from a forensic
11 population and specifically tested in a Bosnian
12 forensic population. These techniques deal with
13 changes that occur in the sternal, meaning the area
14 close to the sternum, meaning the chest part of the
15 fourth rib, and some other changes that occur in the
16 so-called pubic symphysis that is a structure of the
17 hip bone.
18 Both techniques were derived originally in a
19 North American forensic population and subsequently,
20 between '98 and '99, were tested and so-called
21 calibrated, I would say, in forensic Bosnian population
22 from Tuzla.
23 Q. So to summarise what you're saying, am I
24 right that you are stating that the scientific tests
25 used to assess the age of individuals that were exhumed
1 from the Srebrenica graves have been calibrated so that
2 they fit a Bosnian population?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. Now, in terms of all of the scientific
5 standards that you employed as a forensic
6 anthropologist for all of these areas, sex, age,
7 minimum number of individuals per grave, can you make a
8 few comments to the Judges on those standards?
9 A. The -- as with sex, what I would like to add,
10 age is extremely influenced by the preservation of the
11 remains. In other words, if I have only a fragment of
12 a body, if I have a body part, my assessment, as age
13 goes, will be very limited. For example, if I am using
14 a combination of ribs and pubic bones, if I happen to
15 have an arm or a leg, I will not be able to apply those
16 standards to that specific body part, in which case I
17 will be able to say only this individual is an adult or
18 is a sub-adult, is a growing individual, or maybe it's
19 simply an adult. It could be 30, 50, 80. I cannot
20 really make a difference of that.
21 Q. We can move on to the next objective of
22 forensic anthropology, and that is the MNI or minimum
23 number of individuals. Now, before I show you any
24 exhibits, can you explain to the Judges what the
25 purpose of the MNI test is?
1 A. Right. If we were to encounter a grave with
2 complete individuals, one of the first questions that
3 the Prosecution will ask us is: "How many people were
4 in the grave?" In that case, we will do what we
5 normally know as a head count. You can just simply
6 count how many bodies you are seeing.
7 I mentioned earlier that the human body
8 contains 206 bones. Let's imagine for a moment that
9 instead of complete individuals, we have a number of
10 fragments of people, a number of body parts in there.
11 You have seen from the previous testimonies that it is
12 not easy, even while excavating, to be able to count
13 how many remains we have there. And even if we can
14 count them, we still do not know how many people are
15 represented by those remains.
16 Therefore, the minimum number of individuals
17 is a conservative, again, approach as to say at least
18 how many individuals are necessary to account for the
19 number of body parts or bones we have recovered.
20 Q. Now, you've put together a number of exhibits
21 to explain this scientific concept to the Judges. And
22 if you have Exhibit 227 -- the usher can assist you --
23 could you explain to the Judges what is represented by
24 this diagram?
25 A. Although I am using the example of a left
1 forearm in this case, this is basically the same thing
2 as a head count, meaning two left forearms will
3 indicate that at least we have two people, primarily
4 because nobody tends to have more than two left
6 If I may move to the second exhibit, 229.
7 Right. This actually is more like the cases we've been
8 dealing with, meaning fragments. Let's just assume
9 again that we have two females that are from the same
10 side but are two different parts of the female. In
11 this one we got the top or proximal part of the bone
12 and the mid-part of the bone, and in this one we have
13 the mid-part and the bottom part, that is, the distal
15 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. Baraybar, if I could just
16 interrupt you there. The witness is indicating, on
17 Exhibit 229, that in the left portion of the photograph
18 is the proximal portion of the femur, and in the
19 right-hand photograph, the distal portion of the right
21 Q. Please continue, sir.
22 A. Considering that we cannot actually fit these
23 two fragments and make one femur, we have to take again
24 a conservative approach and say that we assume that
25 these two fragments, although not fitting with one
1 another, represent one individual. That would be the
2 way we would construct a minimal number of
3 individuals. Otherwise, we could say that these are
4 two femurs. But we are taking it as only one.
5 Q. But am I right in saying that potentially in
6 any grave site, these two portions of bone could
7 represent two individuals?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. So this technique of counting individuals
10 naturally always under-counts the number of people in a
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Now, if you could move on to Exhibit 230 and
14 explain to the Judges the process that you went through
15 in either a primary or a secondary grave in order to
16 make an assessment of the number of the -- the minimum
17 number of individuals in that grave.
18 One question before you begin. This is
19 simply a model. This does not represent any particular
20 report that you can completed in respect to Srebrenica,
21 does it?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. Please continue.
24 A. Right. As you told you earlier, and I'll put
25 this in perspective so we can understand what I'm
1 trying to explain, every single remain that arrived to
2 our mortuary, meaning a complete body, a body part, an
3 isolated bone, was thoroughly examined and an inventory
4 was produced. We had to account for each and every
5 single bone that was present or absent and,
6 furthermore, we needed to account with what portion,
7 what part of the bone was present or absent.
8 So in our previous example with the femurs,
9 we have to tell whether we have the top part of a
10 femur, whether we have the bottom part of the femur,
11 and we did that not only with the femur but with all
12 the bones.
13 So I have prepared this example for you to
14 understand. The first thing we have to do when
15 examining the remains, as I said earlier, was that the
16 determination of sex and age. Once those two things
17 have been done, we have to fit the individual into an
18 age range. For example, we have the age range from age
19 8 to 12. That basically means that the individuals in
20 that range are not younger than 8 years of age nor
21 older than 12. Then 13 to 24, and then 25 and more,
22 meaning that we have been unable, in some occasions, to
23 specify how old this person was, and again, being
24 conservative would be to say 25 and more.
25 We have scored the presence or absence of the
1 bone by placing a 1 or 0 in the proximal, meaning the
2 upper part of the bone, the middle part, and the distal
3 part, that is, the lower part of the bone. I'm using
4 here only long bones for simplicity's sake.
5 The calculation of the minimal number of
6 individuals at the end of the day, assuming that this
7 is a site, takes place by looking at the highest number
8 in each of the age ranges. So, for example, we're
9 going to start with the 8 to 12 category, and we can
10 see it is all 0. This basically means that no
11 individuals between 8 and 12 were represented by any
13 Q. Mr. Baraybar, you need to bring it down. You
14 need to -- that's fine.
15 A. I will slide it as I explain. Right.
16 If we go now to the category of 13 to 24, the
17 number highlighted in red that says "38," is the
18 highest number in the whole column. If I just put it
19 here, you can see that all the other numbers are lower
20 than 38. Therefore, we consent to say that there are
21 38 fragments of the left proximal femur in the category
22 13 to 24, meaning that at least we have 38 individuals
23 between 13 and 24 years of age.
24 We can do the same thing for 25-plus
25 category, and again it is highlighted in red the number
1 48 that corresponds to the right proximal tibia. This
2 basically means again that 48 individuals, 25 years or
3 more, are represented by the right proximal tibia.
4 If we go to the bottom now, we go to the
5 actual calculation of the minimal number, and we'll see
6 that in the age 8 to 12 range there's 0. In the 13 to
7 17 we have 38, and in the 25 plus we have 48. By
8 adding those figures, we end up with 86 individuals.
9 So in this hypothetical site, we would say
10 that, at least, we have 86 individuals represented by
11 the bones we have recovered.
12 And again, Mr. Baraybar, to stress what we
13 said previously, there is an assumption that all of
14 these bones essentially belong with each other, so
15 potentially the figure could be a great deal higher
16 than 86.
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. Now, it's not quite as simple as that, is
19 it? It does actually become more complex, where when
20 one is dealing with primary and secondary grave sites.
21 Why does it become more complex when one is dealing
22 with a primary site, which has been robbed and the
23 contents moved to secondary site?
24 A. In the previous testimonies, we have seen the
25 process of disturbance of primary sites and the
1 creation of secondary sites. If I may add something to
3 When a primary grave was robbed, it was not
4 completely emptied of its contents, meaning that a
5 number of remains were left behind in the primary
6 grave. Then that primary grave produced, so to speak,
7 a number of secondary sites.
8 Because the machine that went in and robbed
9 the primary site was not selecting what pieces to take,
10 the process occurred at random. This basically means
11 that when the primary site was excavated and the
12 remains analysed, we did not know what we would find.
13 Then we have to find out a way to account for
14 the individual that was left behind in the primary site
15 and the ones that were disposed in the secondary site.
16 The only way to do this would be by merging or
17 combining the left others, so to speak in the primary
18 site and whatever was exposed in the secondary site.
19 In order to do that, we have to calculate a
20 merged or a combined minimal number of individuals that
21 would account for the number of people represented
22 between the primary and the secondary site.
23 Q. Can you demonstrate this on Exhibit 231,
24 which I think is another model? Now, in respect to the
25 sites in and around Srebrenica, how did you know that a
1 primary and a secondary site were connected with each
3 A. I was informed by investigators and then read
4 various reports, such as Dr. Brown's property on soil
5 comparisons, and that is the way I found out which
6 sites were related to what others.
7 Q. If you could use the exhibit in front of you
8 and explain to the Judges the MNI in respect to linked
10 A. This again is another simulation. The first,
11 I have only extracted data for the left femur to make
12 it actually easier to explain.
13 The top part, the top chart in yellow
14 represents a primary site and the bottom one in blue
15 represents the secondary site. We know, because of the
16 information I just mentioned, that the two are linked.
17 The way we would then calculate this merged
18 or combined number of individuals would be very much in
19 the same fashion as we have done it before but with
20 some differences.
21 If we observe the first column, meaning the
22 one from 8 to 12 years, we see that in the primary
23 site, there is a fragment of left distal --
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me,
25 Witness, for interrupting you.
1 I see that the technical booth did not show
2 the picture for the public. Our debates are public.
3 We're talking about something that the public must be
4 able to follow. So I should like to ask the technical
5 booth to pay attention. The witness is talking about
6 something, that is, the witness cannot see -- that the
7 public cannot see. I'm sorry for interrupting you, but
8 you may continue. I apologise, Mr. Cayley.
9 A. If we observe then first the first column
10 from 8 to 12 years, we will see that in the primary
11 site, highlighted in red, there is a number 1
12 indicating that a fragment of left distal femur,
13 meaning the area of the bone of the thigh bone above
14 the knee is represent. However, in the secondary site,
15 there is no entry for the same category and the same
16 bone. The left distal femur says 0.
17 This basically means that merging the two
18 sites, at least we can say that one individual between
19 8 to 12 years was represented.
20 If we proceed with the second column between
21 13 and 24, we will see again that the highest number on
22 the primary site is 49, and is highlighted in red,
23 and --
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me,
25 Witness. I'm sorry for interrupting you.
1 Madam Registrar, are there any technical
2 problems in showing this exhibit or not, because I
3 interrupted the witness once and I see that the matter
4 has not been rectified. Are there any technical
6 THE REGISTRAR: The technical booth says
7 there's no problem.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps
9 there is a problem, because if there's no technical
10 problem, then there's another problem, because I do not
11 see on the monitors the picture which the witness is
12 talking about. So I'm -- now I see it. It's there
13 now. So there was no technical difficulty, but again
14 something was lacking.
15 We must deal with these matters in a dynamic
16 rather than a static way. If a witness is talking
17 about a picture or a table, we cannot follow what the
18 witness is saying if we do not see the picture in front
19 of us or the table. So please pay attention. I'm
20 asking the technical booth to pay attention and to make
21 sure that when the witness is talking about an exhibit,
22 that that exhibit should be shown to the public.
23 I apologise to the witness, once again, and
24 to Mr. Cayley. Perhaps we should round off this point,
25 because it is 2.30.
1 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Mr. Baraybar, if you could just complete your
3 explanation of this particular exhibit.
4 A. I think I left it at the 13-to-24 range,
5 again it is highlighted in red that there are 49 pieces
6 of the proximal left femur, the top part of the femur,
7 and in the secondary site the same -- we have 38
8 individuals also represented by the proximal left
9 femur. And if we move to the 25-plus category, we see
10 that the distal femur has 68 and 44. The minimum
11 number of individuals then would be calculated at the
12 bottom of the page. You can see that in the first
13 category, eight to twelve, we have one; 13 to 24, we
14 have 49 plus 38. That is 87. And in the last one, 68
15 plus 44. That is 112.
16 The total number or the minimal number in
17 this case is 200 individuals, meaning that between the
18 primary and the secondary site, 200 individuals are
19 accounted for, or at least -- that would be the right
20 way to say it -- at least 200 individuals are accounted
21 for between the remains recovered at the primary and
22 the secondary site.
23 Q. But again, as you stated previously, there
24 could be a great deal more than 200 individuals
25 represented by these bone fragments?
1 A. That is correct, and if I may add, that it is
2 paramount to use the same kind of bone in these
3 calculations and to use the same part of the bone in
4 the calculations, because otherwise it would be
5 over-counting individuals. For example, if I use the
6 femur on the primary site and I produce a minimum
7 number of individuals based on the femur on the primary
8 site, and I use another bone, let's say the arm bone,
9 the humerus, on the secondary site and I know that the
10 two sites are connected, if I simply add the two
11 minimal numbers, that is incorrect. I will be
12 overestimating the number I will be having at the end
13 of the day.
14 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, if you wish, this
15 would be a good point in time to pause in
16 Mr. Baraybar's evidence.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes,
18 Mr. Cayley, I think it is time. We have been working a
19 little longer. I apologise to the interpreters. But I
20 think we have finished for today, Witness, and we will
21 resume work tomorrow.
22 So tomorrow at 9.30.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
24 2.34 p.m., to be reconvened on
25 Tuesday, the 30th day of May, 2000,
1 at 9.30 a.m.