1 Monday, 16 September 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
9 Mr. Seric, are you ready for your next witness?
10 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. Yes.
11 We are quite ready. The witness is here and we are waiting for him to be
12 brought in.
13 JUDGE LIU: Are there any protective measures for this witness?
14 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We are applying for
15 a pseudonym and face distortion.
16 JUDGE LIU: Any objections?
17 MR. PORIOUVAEV: No objections, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Your request is granted.
19 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE LIU: Before we have the next witness, I would like to
21 remind both parties about two matters. One is for the -- as for the final
22 trial briefs, I believe that both parties should act in accordance with
23 the practice direction on the length of briefs and motions, which was
24 issued by this Tribunal on the 5th of March, 2002. In this direction, it
25 says clearly the final trial brief will not exceed 200 pages or 60.000
1 words, whichever is greater.
2 The other matter is that we have received the filings from the
3 Prosecution concerning the rebuttal witnesses. We are expecting the
4 filings from the Defence counsel.
5 Yes, Mr. Scott.
6 MR. SCOTT: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours, Judge
7 Clark, Judge Diarra, we are preparing, and your comments are timely of
8 course, and certainly would be in any event but we have prepared, are
9 preparing a motion on the length of the issues for clarification, because
10 of course in this situation we have a multi-accused case and it strikes us
11 as least as a bit of an anomaly that the party with the burden of proof
12 would get half as many pages as the parties -- as the Defence since,
13 presumably, both accused each get 200 pages and that would mean a total of
14 400 pages of Defence briefs whereas the Prosecution, again with the burden
15 of proof, would only have 200 pages. I'm not asking for the Chamber to
16 issue any sort of ruling at this moment but we are prepare ago filing on
17 that to -- won't come as any surprise I suppose based on what I just said
18 for some upward increase for the Prosecution above 200.
19 JUDGE LIU: Well, thank you very much. I think this Trial Chamber
20 will act in accordance with the filings you will file.
21 Yes, Mr. Seric?
22 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] While the witness is moving in, I can
23 say that our response to the Prosecutor's motion for additional evidence,
24 we shall submit until the -- by the 18th of September this year. That is
25 within the next two days.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Thank you.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness. Can you hear me?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can, yes.
5 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in
6 accordance with the paper the usher is showing to you?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
8 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 WITNESS: WITNESS MV
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You may sit down, please.
12 Yes, Mr. Seric?
13 Examined by Mr. Seric:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness. The usher will show you
15 a sheet of paper with your name and your pseudonym on it. If the -- your
16 name is correctly written, say yes, but take care not to mention your
17 name. Just say yes.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Witness, or perhaps I or other parties will address you by the
20 pseudonym granted you by the Chamber, and that is MU [As interpreted].
21 Let us endeavour to be as slow as possible and it is particularly
22 important to wait for a few seconds after I finish my question so that the
23 interpreters could keep up with us and interpret all that we say.
24 This is of utmost importance because, believe it or not, we shall
25 move faster in that way.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Seric, one thing to clarify. What is the
2 pseudonym for this witness? It's MU or MV?
3 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] MV, I'm so sorry.
4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
5 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as I would like to go
6 now into some particulars of this witness, could we please go into private
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to the private session.
9 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Witness, were you engaged in jobs that allowed you to receive
22 different kinds of information and reports?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you have any information about the persecution of Muslims?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did the Muslims move from one to the other part of the town?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did the same happen to Croats?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you have any information whatsoever that Vinko Martinovic and
6 his unit expelled, evicted Muslims from their flats?
7 A. Yes. In several instances, there was some information but it had
8 not -- it was not verified, and therefore was not reliable. It all boiled
9 down to hearsay, to grapevine and the like.
10 Q. Did you have any knowledge about members of some other units
11 misrepresenting themselves as Stela's boys or Stelici?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you have any direct knowledge, any personal experience, with
14 some occurrence of that nature?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And what did you do? Did you check it?
17 A. Yes. I remember there was a report that at night, in a part of --
18 in a building, people were harassed and evicted and that two of Stela's
19 comrades at arms were mentioned. Pursuant to the commander's order, I
20 personally went to the site in the morning and inquired, asked the tenants
21 there about it, and we even organised a confrontation between two comrades
22 at arms, Stela's, that is. However, these tenants stated that those two
23 did not fit, that they looked differently from those individuals who had
24 come the previous night.
25 Q. Do you know if there were any other cases of impersonation?
1 A. Yes. On several occasions, mostly late at night, some uniformed
2 individuals would say they belonged -- may I say that? That they were
3 members of the military police or that they were members of MUP, of the
4 civilian police, of the 4th Battalion, then members of the Convicts
5 Battalion, and some other units which held the positions around town.
6 However, the identity -- however, we were unable to establish whether
7 those individuals really belonged to those units. Moreover, we gained the
8 impression that those individuals did not belong to the units they said
9 that they belonged to.
10 Q. Witness, can you tell the Chamber, according to the information
11 that you had, what was Vinko Martinovic's duty, office?
12 A. Vinko Martinovic, from what I know, held no office, but he enjoyed
13 the authority amongst a group of soldiers from his street and he was -- he
14 enjoyed also the reputation of a brave man.
15 Q. Witness, whilst engaging in the duties that we heard you
16 discharged, did you also do the same thing in 1996 and the beginning of
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will have now some
20 personal questions, so could we go into private session, please?
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to the private session, please.
22 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Do you know -- do you have any knowledge whether, during the war,
25 and by this I mean the conflict between the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and
1 the HVO, there were any cases of misuse of documentation by AID, that is
2 whether various documents were forged in order to fabricate facts?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Was that done by some Croat secret services too, SIS or HIS, for
6 A. I cannot answer this question because I'm bound by the official
7 secrets act.
8 Q. Do you know -- are you aware -- do you have any knowledge whether
9 there was a deal struck between Muslim and some Croatian or Croat secret
10 services relative to the selection of documents used in cases before -- in
11 this Tribunal?
12 A. I cannot answer this question.
13 Q. Will you tell us why?
14 A. Because I'm duty-bound to keep official secrets.
15 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I've finished my direct
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, any cross-examination, Mr. Prosecutor?
18 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, Your Honour. So my, my learned colleague
19 was so swift that I failed to prepare my working papers.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Poriouvaev, please.
21 Cross-examined by Mr. Poriouvaev:
22 Q. First of all, Witness, I suggest that we should go into private
23 session for some points.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Prosecutor, you have to introduce yourself
25 to the witness first.
1 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, I will do it.
2 JUDGE LIU: Later on, we will go to private session.
3 MR. PORIOUVAEV:
4 Q. Witness, my name is Vasily Poriouvaev, I am a trial attorney and I
5 will ask you some questions relative to your direct examination by
6 Mr. Seric?
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to the private session, please.
8 [Private session]
13 Page 15426-15431 – redacted – private session
19 [Open session]
20 MR. PORIOUVAEV:
21 Q. And sometimes, Witness, your information bore title "information
22 A" or "information B". Could you explain briefly to the Trial Chamber
23 what is the difference between information A and B? Is it a matter of
24 credibility or sources?
25 A. I do not remember exactly but I think that it was the analysts who
1 divided information that way. People in the analytical sector.
2 Q. So you cannot explain the difference; right?
3 A. No, I can't.
4 Q. And I suggest that during your daily activities, you cooperated
5 with military police and crime investigation department in particular;
7 A. I did not, at least not personally.
8 Q. I'm not just interested in you personally but I'm asking you
9 about your agency, SIS, as an organisation.
10 A. I cannot answer this question.
11 Q. Because you don't know? Or you don't want? Or it is also
12 military secret?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Okay. I would like the witness to be shown Exhibit 629.
15 JUDGE LIU: We don't have this document.
16 MR. PORIOUVAEV: 629?
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] The Defence doesn't have this
18 document either, Your Honours.
19 MR. PORIOUVAEV: I'm sorry, it's just maybe a matter of
20 confusion. Unfortunately -- this document was admitted into evidence.
21 Can I use it now? Just to show one page? Do you have it?
22 THE REGISTRAR: Yes.
23 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Thank you very much.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You may use it and if it's not the document
25 under seal, could we put it on the ELMO?
1 MR. PORIOUVAEV: No, Your Honour, because we can reveal, in such a
2 way, the witness's identity. But I can provide you with my own copy.
3 Q. Witness, I would like to you take a look at the last -- at the
4 second page, just at the end, just at the bottom of the page. Is your
5 position, title, indicated rightly, correctly, in this document?
6 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
20 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you very much.
21 I did not do it on purpose, of course.
22 Q. So, Witness, in response to the Defence counsel's question, you
23 stated that you had some information about the persecution of Muslims in
24 West Mostar, right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And which units, which army, was involved in such kind of
2 persecutions, expulsion, eviction and so on? Were it HVO units?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Then who did it? Individuals who were not military?
5 A. I don't know.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We will go to the private session first.
12 [Private session]
13 Page 15436 – redacted – private session
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
13 Page 15438 – redacted – private session
13 Page 15439 – redacted – private session
17 [Open session]
18 JUDGE LIU: We will rise until 4.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 4.02 p.m.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Prosecutor, we will start in open session,
22 so be careful with your cross-examination.
23 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, I will, Your Honour.
24 I would like the witness to be shown Exhibit 620.4.
25 Q. Witness, please take a look at the original document. I suggest
1 that this information was also just drafted by you; right?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. So, Witness, this information, as you see, is dealing with planned
4 expulsion of Muslim citizens. How did you get to know about these facts,
5 which were characterised by you as widespread? Did you talk to Muslim
6 victims? I mean victims of plundering, first of all, of course. Or
7 did your people, your subordinates, do that in the line of their duty?
8 A. I received this information from citizens.
9 Q. Citizens of Croat nationality or Muslim nationality?
10 A. Both.
11 Q. So -- and how didn't you manage to establish people who were doing
12 that, if it is true that they were misrepresenting themselves? Was your
13 staff not qualified?
14 A. I have already said that, if I remember properly, I went on one
15 occasion to that building where there was -- citizens were disturbed
16 during the previous night and from which we had received information that
17 the names of some, as they called them, Stelici and so, and I've already
18 said it, I even organised eye-to-eye confrontation with two of Stela's
19 comrades at arms to see whether the tenants would recognise them.
20 Q. But my question was, did you talk to any Muslim victim of
22 A. No.
23 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Your Honour, I have still two topics to cover and
24 I will not take you long.
25 Q. Witness, is it correct that Vinko Skrobo unit used prisoners from
1 Heliodrom on the confrontation line, in such a way, imperilling their life
2 and health?
3 A. I'm not aware of those cases.
4 MR. PORIOUVAEV: I would like the witness to be shown Exhibit
6 Q. I would like to draw your attention to page 2 of the document,
7 just I mean the second paragraph of the document, from above. Did you
8 manage to read this, Witness?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Was this document drafted when you kept your position; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So I suggest that you knew about the facts that prisoners were
13 used by Vinko Skrobo unit in digging their part of the line, digging
14 trenches or doing something else as indicated here in the information;
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric?
17 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, all that I'm asking is
18 that the witness be allowed to read the whole information and that the
19 Prosecutor question be based on full information, because this information
20 says very loud and clear where the work was taking place.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. The witness is allowed to read the whole
22 document, especially that particular paragraph.
23 MR. PORIOUVAEV:
24 Q. Have you read it, Witness? So were you aware of that fact --
25 A. I have.
1 Q. Were you aware of such facts?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Witness, since you have read the whole document, I will ask
4 another question relevant to this document. In this document, it is
5 indicated that the HV company, which was involved in the confrontation
6 line, left Mostar in such a way it created problems for the security of
7 the lines. Is that correct?
8 A. I'm not aware of that case.
9 Q. You did not know?
10 A. I didn't.
11 Q. And you didn't know that prisoners were involved in forced labour
12 in other lines, in other locations?
13 A. I wasn't.
14 MR. PORIOUVAEV: I would like the witness to be shown Exhibit
16 THE INTERPRETER: "I didn't."
17 MR. PORIOUVAEV:
18 Q. First of all, Witness, I would like you to take a look at the last
19 page of the document and the name of person who signed this document.
20 Don't pronounce his name, please, and his position. Is it correct that
21 this man was your immediate superior?
22 A. At that time, no.
23 Q. He was not? Do you mean that this is a false information? A
24 false piece of information?
25 A. I'm not aware of this information.
1 Q. But was he your superior, immediate superior? You've just
2 indicated in the beginning of the cross-examination who was your immediate
3 superior, and the position you mentioned here in the courtroom is
4 consistent with the position indicated in this document. That's why I'm
5 asking you just to clarify the situation.
6 A. Sir, at that time, I was in the command of the town defence, and
7 this information was done at the SIS centre in Mostar.
8 Q. Witness, you just mentioned to the Trial Chamber what position you
9 occupied in December, 1993. Maybe we have misunderstood you. I don't ask
10 you to just to give your position.
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, shall we go into private session?
12 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Maybe for security reasons, we should do that.
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We will go to the private session, please.
14 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 MR. PORIOUVAEV:
5 Q. Witness, I would like to now -- to return to the problem of HV
6 involvement in armed conflict in Mostar. So do you continue to insist
7 that HV units were not involved in armed conflict in Mostar?
8 A. I don't know of any such cases.
9 MR. PORIOUVAEV: I would like witness to be shown Exhibit 628.1.
10 Q. Witness, was this piece of information drafted by you?
11 A. I don't remember.
12 Q. Please read it well. This information is dealing with HV military
13 police being stationed in Mostar, and you also indicate in this
14 information that you have called on your own responsibility the commanders
15 of HV units. You are not talking in this information about individuals.
16 The units and their commanders are mentioned; right?
17 A. I don't remember this report.
18 Q. Okay. If your memory fails you, I cannot help you. But maybe I
19 will try to help you somehow.
20 MR. PORIOUVAEV: I would like the witness to be shown Exhibit
22 Q. You see, is this your document, witness? I put my question --
23 A. I don't remember. I don't remember this document.
24 Q. You don't remember, Witness, but in this document, you mention a
25 joint HV/MUP and HVO patrol which was functioning in the territory of
1 Mostar; right?
2 A. No.
3 Q. You don't mention or you don't remember? You did not mention this
4 fact or you don't remember this fact? Just clarify your position,
6 A. I don't remember this report, and I don't remember ever having
7 such information.
8 Q. All right. My final question will be: Is it correct, Witness,
9 that there was some problem between Vinko Skrobo and Mario Milicevic, who
10 were commanders of Vinko Skrobo unit and Benko Penavic unit?
11 A. I don't remember.
12 MR. PORIOUVAEV: I would like the witness to be shown Exhibit
14 Q. Can you lift it down? Now, Witness, do you remember -- did you
15 recall that incident which took place on the 7th of October, 1993?
16 A. No.
17 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Your Honour, I have no further questions. Thank
18 you very much for your patience.
19 JUDGE LIU: Any re-examination?
20 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to give
22 your evidence. When the usher pulls down the blinds, he will show you out
23 of the room. We wish you a pleasant journey back home.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE LIU: At this stage, are there any documents to tender?
1 Yes, Mr. Prosecutor?
2 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, Your Honour. I would like to tender the
3 following documents: Exhibit P292.1; 578.1; 620.4; 624.1; 628.1; 628.2;
4 719.1; the last document has already been tendered but since there is no
5 decision on the admittance of this document, I tender it again.
6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Any objections, Mr. Seric?
7 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] There are objections, Your Honour.
8 But considering that there are several documents and we have different
9 grounds for objecting to each one of them, I kindly ask to extend the time
10 allowed for the Defence to lodge their objections in writing. Thank you
11 very much.
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, as for the document P620.4, and document P624.1,
13 this, during the testimony of that witness, the witness said clearly that
14 those documents were written by himself. So there is no doubt about the
15 reliability and authenticity of those two documents. So we decided that
16 those two documents are admitted into the evidence. As for the other five
17 documents, we are looking forward to your response, and as for the
18 document P719.1, we found that there is no English translation for that
19 document, at least in my binder. We will consider that document when we
20 receive the English translation of that particular document.
21 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Your Honour, actually we have a translation,
22 maybe it was some mistake by our assistants not to provide you with the
23 translation of the document.
24 JUDGE LIU: I see. Thank you very much. This any way, we will
25 make our decision when we receive the objections from the Defence side
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 concerning with those five documents.
2 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Agreed.
3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
4 Well, we will have the next witness, and we understand that the
5 next witness will be an expert witness. We need -- we need to have the
6 statement of that witness at our hands. So could I suggest we break for
7 five minutes? Yes, Mr. Par?
8 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that statement was filed
9 with the Trial Chamber and the Prosecution office a long time ago. I
10 believe the Trial Chamber should have it. But if necessary, we are
11 prepared to have it photocopied during the break.
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, we have it in our office but we don't
13 think that we could conduct the testimony of the first witness so smoothly
14 so we did not bring it here. So my suggestion is that we have five
15 minutes' break and we'll resume after that.
16 --- Break taken at 4.30 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 4.45 p.m.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness. Can you hear me?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. I can hear you.
22 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration, please?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
24 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
25 WITNESS: DRAZEN BEGIC
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
3 Yes, Mr. Par.
4 Examined by Mr. Par:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, doctor. Can you hear me well?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Before I begin, I would kindly ask you to try to speak more or
8 less slowly for the interpreters to be able to follow and to make pauses
9 between questions and answers. When I finish my question, it would be a
10 good idea for you to wait for two or three seconds before you start
11 answering and speak up, please.
12 That said, would you tell us your full name, please?
13 A. My name is Drazen Begic.
14 Q. Could you please tell us briefly about yourself and your
16 A. I live in Zagreb. I'm a psychiatrist. I was born in Vukovar in
17 1958. I'm a doctor, have been a doctor for 20 years now. I became a
18 psychiatrist 12 years ago, and I have been a registered forensic expert
19 for the past five years. I work at the medical school of the university
20 in Zagreb, as assistant professor in psychiatry. I got my BS -- I got my
21 degree in 1953 -- 1993, and I am a member of the Croatian Academy of Arts
22 and Sciences.
23 Q. Dr. Begic, this Defence team contacted you in March 2002 with a
24 request for your expertise. Can you describe to the Trial Chamber what
25 kind of request it was and what was your task as an expert?
1 A. In March of this year, I received a request for forensic expertise
2 from the legal office of Seric and Par and I was asked to review the
3 medical documentation for Mr. Halil Ajanic. I was asked to pay particular
4 attention to certain points, such as whether Mr. Ajanic suffered from one
5 or more psychiatric disorders, how they manifested themselves, whether
6 they were progressive or not, whether a person with such a diagnosis or
7 diagnoses could perceive and reproduce material shown to them, to what
8 extent they were susceptible to suggestion and to what extent evidence or
9 facts described by them were authentic and credible.
10 Q. Could you please tell us about an addendum to that request that
11 you received? Was there any medical documentation?
12 A. There was one annex, so-called excerpt from the medical
13 documentation of the regional medical centre in Mostar, describing the
14 course of Mr. Ajanic's hospitalisation in April, 1996, in the psychiatric
15 department, in the psychiatric ward, indicating the psychiatric
16 difficulties experienced by the patient at admission and his various
17 diagnoses, as made in the course of his treatment.
18 Q. Dr. Begic, on the basis of that, you made your report and gave
19 your opinion dated 6th of April, 2002. Is that your report?
20 A. Yes. It reflects my expert's opinion based on my review of this
21 medical document.
22 Q. You said the 6th of March, right? Because the transcript says
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. It was March.
25 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. The transcript has now been corrected. Let us now proceed with
2 your opinion and expert conclusion. The first question posed by this
3 Defence was what kind of disorder or disorders Mr. Ajanic suffered from,
4 according to the documentation you received?
5 A. According to the medical documentation, Mr. Ajanic suffers from a
6 variety of psychiatric disorders. First of all, psychosis, probably
7 alcohol-induced, the amnesic syndrome and debility. Those are three
8 completely different diagnoses which, however, can quite plausibly
9 co-exist within one and the same clinical picture of one patient. This
10 situation is not uncommon in our profession. It's called co-morbidity,
11 meaning that one patient suffers from several different psychiatric
13 Q. Let us go through these three diagnoses. Could you tell us what
14 alcohol-induced psychosis is, in fact, and how it manifests itself?
15 A. Alcohol-induced psychosis is a complication of alcoholism. A
16 person who consumes alcohol in excess, over a number of years, becomes
17 dependent, addicted, to alcohol. An alcoholic can develop psychosis in a
18 variety of ways. One of the ways is for him to stop consuming alcohol
19 abruptly. In the event of such abrupt abstinence, the patient develops
20 acute psychosis of a degenerative type.
21 Another form of psychosis results from continued consumption of
22 alcohol unrelieved by abstinence and it eventually leads to a chronic form
23 of alcohol-induced psychosis. Both of these forms are characterised by a
24 range of symptoms, typical of psychosis. Psychosis is a condition in
25 which a person does not absorb reality appropriately. There are delusions
1 in the patient, sometimes of paranoid, persecution-related type in males,
2 they take the form of pathological jealousy. Another symptom is
3 difficulty in intellectual functioning and inadequate social functioning.
4 That would be the briefest description of alcohol-induced psychosis, be it
5 acute or chronic.
6 Q. Could you tell us now what amnesic syndrome signifies and how it
7 is manifested?
8 A. The amnesic syndrome is a condition which can be encountered in
9 various psychiatric but also neurological entities, the clinical picture
10 of the amnesic syndrome is amnesia. Failure to recall certain periods of
11 time. These periods of time can be briefer or longer, with varying
12 intervals of adequate functioning in between them. The onset of amnesia
13 can be abrupt or gradual, both in its beginning and its end. It's
14 important to say about the amnesic syndrome that it has a variety of
15 etiologies, meaning that there is a variety of causes. Any serious
16 disease of the brain tissue and the central nervous system from tumors,
17 bleeding, trauma, and a number of others, could lead to the amnesic
18 syndrome. It can accompany degenerative diseases of the central nervous
19 system, dementia, Alzheimer's Disease or non-Alzheimer's related diseases.
20 It can also result from arterial sclerosis in the brain and also through
21 exposition -- through exposure to those addictive drugs.
22 In our end of the world, it is common in alcoholics, many
23 alcoholics develop the amnesic syndrome over time. This amnesic syndrome
24 can vary in intensity and character and the -- and the intense form of
25 this syndrome is called the Korsakov Syndrome. It is characterised by
1 memory blackouts, which are filled by the patient by confabulation, as we
2 call it, completely made up, invented contents. And this is particularly
3 typical of the form of the syndrome which is induced by alcohol.
4 Q. Dr. Begic, could you tell us what mental retardation or debility
5 is and how that is manifested?
6 A. Debility or debilitas is a form of mental retardation or -- In
7 literature we often encounter two pieces of information. It's a person
8 with the IQ of between 50 and 59 and 50 and 70. It's a person who can
9 usually complete elementary education, find employment of -- in manual
10 jobs, simple jobs. It can enter into marriage and function but at more
11 demanding levels of functioning, the person starts failing in the
12 emotional, cognitive, intellectual and various other senses. These people
13 are unable of performing more complicated tasks. They demand attention
14 from their environment. Their abstract intelligence is very poorly
15 developed. And the last but not least important characteristic is that
16 these persons are extremely susceptible to suggestion. This
17 susceptibility to suggestion is reflected in the following way: These
18 persons accept suggestions and advice from their environment, even if it
19 jeopardises their material, moral, physical integrity. They are capable
20 of acting to their own detriment, following suggestions by other persons.
21 Q. Very well. Can you now tell us, in relation to the problems that
22 we just talked about, are they progressive disorders? Do they deteriorate
23 or do they -- can there be -- can they be cured over time?
24 A. With regard to the first diagnosis that was mentioned here, that
25 is the alcoholic psychosis, it is a progressive disease. In time, the
1 clinical picture deteriorates at all levels. And a similar thing would
2 hold true of the amnesic -- amnesia syndrome although the latter and the
3 progression depend on the cause, that is on the etiology. When we come to
4 the third diagnosis, that is the debility, the degradation may exist but
5 need not. What is important, however, is that a mentally retarded person
6 cannot recover. That is somebody with an IQ between 50 and 69 or 50 and
7 70 in time, regardless of social care, cannot improve. That is that
8 individual will remain at the same level or the disease will progress
9 and there will be further cognitive collapse, deterioration over time.
10 Q. Now, doctor, could --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please speak into the
13 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You used the documentation referring to 1996?
15 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Par, you are being reminded by the interpreters to
16 speak directly into the microphone. They have difficulties to hear you.
17 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. And my apologies
18 to the interpreters.
19 Q. So, my question was: Since the documentation that you analysed
20 dates back to 1996, and we are in point of fact interested in the state of
21 health of Mr. Ajanic in 1992 -- in 2002, when he testified before this
22 Court, can you tell us whether the state of his health in 2002 could be
23 better, worse or the same as in 1996?
24 A. If I may say, 1992, I guess it's an error.
25 Q. Yes. For the record, the documentation -- medical documentation
1 dates back to 1996.
2 A. It is to be expected that over this period of time, of six years,
3 the first two diagnoses would be progressing, that is they would be a
4 deterioration, that is a decline in mental functions. As for the third
5 diagnosis, the debilitas it is quite possible that there has also been
6 deterioration in this case, but not necessarily so. I repeat in the case
7 of the third diagnosis, there can be no improvement. The situation may be
8 at a standstill.
9 Q. So can we then conclude that his health can be either the same or
10 worse than in 1996?
11 A. To put it in simple terms, yes.
12 Q. Give us, please, if you can go in depth, tell us something more
13 about these diseases. What I'm interested in is the capacity of accurate
14 perception in individuals suffering from these diseases and their
15 gullibility, that is their susceptibility to suggestion, in view of all
16 the diagnoses that we have heard so far.
17 A. The perceptiveness is indubitably disrupted in cases of alcoholic
18 psychosis and the amnesic syndrome, not only the perceptiveness, the
19 capacity of perception, but also the ability to reproduce the memorised
20 material. In the case of debility, the perceptiveness can also be
21 disrupted to a lesser degree. But the ability to reproduce the memorised
22 contents is significantly disrupted in the cases of debilitas. As for the
23 gullibility, the susceptibility to suggestion, psychiatric patients are
24 different from other patients, that is healthy individuals, because the
25 majority of them are highly susceptible to suggestion. So that the
1 alcoholic psychosis and the amnesic syndrome do not differ from other
2 psychiatric disorders in that respect. However, the mental retardation
3 is the psychiatric diagnosis which shows the gullibility most marked. In
4 other words, we are unable to diagnose debilitas, if we -- if the clinical
5 picture does not include also a very highly marked gullibility.
6 Q. Now, from the medical and scientific point of view, what can we
7 say? How reliable can be the information or statement received from such
8 individuals, especially if they are interpreting certain events which
9 happened eight years earlier? How reliable are they?
10 A. A period of eight years is a relatively long period of time. And
11 during that period of time, undoubtedly there can be a change in the state
12 of mental health which then results in an altered reproduction. That is
13 an individual with this diagnosis will give unreliable answers. That is
14 to several -- to this person will answer the questions inaccurately rather
15 than accurately, more often than not. The reliability of somebody's
16 statement is again questionable because every one of these diagnoses will
17 severally affect the memory and learning, and when these diagnoses are
18 combined, then of course, their effect is even more pronounced so that
19 reliability is low, authenticity highly questionable.
20 Q. Thank you very much, doctor.
21 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your
22 Honours. I have finished. Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE LIU: Any cross-examination? Mr. Stringer?
24 Cross-examined by Mr. Stringer:
25 MR. STRINGER: I'm prepared for my cross-examination,
1 Mr. President.
2 JUDGE LIU: Oh, yes.
3 MR. STRINGER: If I could have just a moment to get organised?
4 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Begic.
5 A. Good afternoon.
6 Q. My name is Douglas Stringer. I'm going to ask you questions on
7 behalf of the Prosecution. Before we start, I'll ask the usher to show
8 you two documents marked as Exhibits 877.22 and 877.23. Dr. Begic, I
9 believe, you'll recognise both of these. One of them is the opinion
10 letter that you wrote in response to the inquiry by Mr. Seric and Mr. Par,
11 and the other document is the medical documentation that you have referred
12 to in your direct testimony.
13 Do you have those? Okay. Now, before we go through each of those
14 documents, Dr. Begic, just some general questions first.
15 We are talking about a gentleman who, as you know, was a witness
16 in this case. Did you have an opportunity to examine that person? Have
17 you ever met him?
18 A. I haven't.
19 Q. Did you ask to have an opportunity to examine him?
20 A. I did not.
21 Q. So the opinion that you've given and the information contained in
22 it is essentially based on the issue that was presented to you by misters
23 Seric and Par? That was the parameters of your analysis?
24 A. Correct. I analysed a document attached to the request.
25 Q. Was the gentleman's testimony in these proceedings, was that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 testimony or a transcript of that testimony, made available to you, to
2 assist you in conducting your analysis?
3 A. No.
4 Q. I'll ask the witness be shown what's been marked Exhibit 848.1.
5 Dr. Begic, I don't expect that you will recognise this but I'll
6 ask you any way. This is a witness statement that was provided to our
7 investigators by the gentleman, the witness. Have you ever seen that
9 A. No.
10 Q. So you did not have an opportunity to consider this document in
11 conducting your analysis of his mental condition or ability to give
12 accurate or reliable testimony?
13 A. I didn't, no, because I analysed only the medical documentation,
14 which is possibility in the Croatian legal system, and that is not
16 Q. So before we talk about the specifics of your analysis, Dr. Begic,
17 I'd just like to ask you this more general question. The testimony and
18 the opinions that you've given, it seems to me, sir, that you've -- you
19 are only in a position to give the Trial Chamber information about the
20 characteristics and the attributes that are associated with the various
21 medical conditions that have been identified. Is that a correct
23 A. On the basis of the document attached, yes.
24 Q. Okay. Now, the document attached is the one that's marked as
25 Exhibit 877.22. Can I ask you to take that document in hand? Do you have
2 A. I do, yes.
3 Q. Now, this is a letter written to Mr. Seric and Par, my colleagues
4 on the Defence bench, over the name and signature of a Dr. Ramo Omanovic
5 dated 26 February, 2002. Dr. Begic, is this the basis of the information
6 or does this contain the information that you relied on in conducting your
8 A. Of course.
9 Q. There is nothing else beyond the four corners of this document
10 that you considered in reaching the conclusions that you've reached?
11 A. No.
12 Q. The last sentence of the document indicates that basically the
13 information contained in this letter is the only documentation that they
14 have in respect of this person. So this is really all that you had to
15 work with at the time you were asked to perform your analysis for
16 Mr. Seric and Par; is that correct?
17 A. It is.
18 Q. Dr. Begic, would you agree with me that this information, the
19 information contained in this letter, first of all, it is not the actual
20 source medical documentation that one would normally want to have at hand
21 in conducting an analysis of the kind that you performed; is that
23 A. It is, but if I may add, at the end of my report, I suggested a
24 number of procedures which could be requested additionally. I presume
25 Dr. Omanovic really had no other documentation. He prepared this on
1 the basis of Mr. Ajanic's treatment in the ward. But this document
2 already shows that Mr. Ajanic had been treated at least twice, once in
3 Sokolac and once in Mostar. So I had no reason to doubt the authenticity
4 of this document and therefore I assumed that even after 1996, Mr. Ajanic
5 underwent psychiatric treatment, be it as an out patient or in hospital,
6 and in my conclusion, I suggested that this documentation be presented to
7 this Court or perhaps some other expert witness, among other things.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par?
9 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I waited for the witness
10 to finish his answer but I'd like to establish whether the Prosecutor is
11 bringing into dispute the authenticity of this document, the source of
12 this document, or is he speaking in general about insufficient
13 documentation? We are simply not clear about this as the Defence team and
14 perhaps even the witness doesn't fully understand.
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, in my view, the Prosecution is asking about the
16 contents of this document, not the authenticity of this document. You
17 will have more reached documents [sic] than this I'm not sure, maybe the
18 Prosecution could clarify this issue for us.
19 MR. STRINGER: No, Mr. President, if I -- I didn't mean to suggest
20 that we challenged the authenticity of the document marked Exhibit
21 877.22. I don't challenge the authenticity of the document. I do -- I'm
22 trying to ask some questions about simply the extent to which the document
23 refers to other information or other documents which have not been made
24 available or which appear for whatever reason not to be available. And
25 I just wanted to ask a couple more questions about that.
1 Q. Dr. Begic -- and tell me if you don't know -- do you know who this
2 Dr. Omanovic is who wrote this letter? Do you know him or do you know of
4 A. I don't know him. I've seen several other documents with his
5 facsimile so no, I do not know him personally.
6 Q. He did not give you the actual medical records that were made at
7 the time of treatment in 1996, correct? That was not made available?
8 A. I did not get that. I did not ask for it. Because I repeat, in
9 the Croatian legal system, you cannot get some documentation from your
11 Q. Dr. Begic, it seems to me that you're not having had an
12 opportunity to examine or to speak with the witness, coupled with the fact
13 that nothing more detailed in the way of documentation was provided beyond
14 what's contained in this letter, that really, you had only a very, very
15 limited basis on which to give an opinion. Would you agree with me?
16 A. I agree with that, but I have to say nonetheless that at the end
17 of my report, there are some recommendations what else can be done, apart
18 from the documentation. Now, if I may be allowed to do that. So other
19 medical documentation, of course, psychiatric or psychological, be an
20 analysis or observation, and what I would add, which I did not include in
21 my report, would be a hetero case history, it means collecting all the
22 information from next of kin, Mr. Ajanic's next of kin or people who are
23 close to him, who can confirm how does he function on a daily level. So
24 I'd like to add it for the record, because I did not include it in the
25 conclusion to my report. Thank you.
1 Q. So that there are a number of things that could have been done,
2 there is -- there are other perhaps other information that could have been
3 acquired by you that would have enabled you to give a more credible
4 opinion as to the mental condition of this gentleman?
5 A. No doubt there are ways and means of obtaining documentation, of
6 obtaining records, which would perhaps enable one to arrive at a more
7 accurate assessment and forecast, but I have no reason to doubt either the
8 authenticity of this finding, because from the medical point of view, it
9 is written very logically, and it seems to me that, my at least, clinical
10 experience and also literature, seem to indicate that these diagnoses can
11 be only interpreted in the way that I did in my opinion. Needless to say,
12 all that I've suggested to do would lead -- would result in a better, in a
13 higher grade expert opinion. But again, I say that would not look much
14 different in the general conclusion and recommendation.
15 Q. Isn't it true, Dr. Begic, that in fact based on the very limited
16 amount of data you had at hand, that would itself undermine confidence in
17 your opinion and your assessment of the witness? You simply didn't have
18 enough data on which to give a sufficiently well-grounded opinion about
19 this witness?
20 A. Apart from this information that one finds in this document, I did
21 not have any other information. I repeat that. But the diagnosis which
22 we see here are very serious, long-lasting and I have no reason to doubt
23 that Mr. Ajanic's clinical picture was exactly as it is shown here at that
24 time in Mostar.
25 Q. In 1996?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that another person in your field,
3 equally qualified as you, might in fact conclude that there is
4 insufficient information on which to give an opinion of the witness's
5 credibility or ability to give testimony in 2002? Others might not be
6 able to give an opinion based on the information presented?
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par?
8 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object to the manner in
9 which the Prosecutor asked the question, because he seems to suggest that
10 the witness established the diagnosis on the mental condition of
11 Mr. Ajanic. The witness repeated it clearly several times that he
12 analysed the documentation, he did not examine the man or establish his
13 diagnosis. I object to any kind of questions which seem to involve the
14 witness into a zone in which he seems to have established a diagnosis.
15 The witness did not establish the diagnosis, he did not examine the
16 witness, he examined what the paper said -- says. And I think that the
17 Prosecutor is applying an incorrect approach, pretending that the witness
18 has examined the man, the individual in question.
19 MR. STRINGER: I can put my question a different way,
20 Mr. President, if it will assist.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You may rephrase your question so that we could
22 understand you better.
23 MR. STRINGER:
24 Q. Another person in your field might well not be willing to give an
25 opinion because the data provided is too limited, because they didn't have
1 an opportunity to examine the witness; is that correct?
2 A. It is not correct. An expert witness should be able to produce
3 his opinion on the basis of just one finding, whether it would be
4 different from mine, I doubt it, but in our legal system, we analyse a
5 document, for instance a testament, which is not a matter, which is all
6 that rare, if you get my meaning. That is another expert witness could on
7 the basis of one document give his opinion too. It is another matter
8 whether that opinion would be different from mine and how much would it be
9 different. Personally, I don't think it would be any different.
10 Q. Now, looking -- I want to direct your attention, Dr. Begic, to
11 some of the information that is contained on this letter. First of all,
12 this indicates he was treated in Mostar for an eight-day period, I believe
13 as an in-patient during April of 1996; correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. That fact alone doesn't give us much information about the mental
16 condition of the witness in, say, 1993, which is when the events occurred
17 in which he -- that he testified about? That doesn't tell us much about
18 his condition in 1993, does it?
19 A. You are partially correct because this document says that
20 Mr. Ajanic was treated in Sokolac for about three years, in an earlier
21 period, we don't know which exactly but three years of treatment is an
22 extremely long time and it couldn't have been done if it wasn't really
23 necessary. It also says that he was treated in Mostar. Unfortunately
24 again we don't know when, whether it was in 1993, after 1993 or before
25 1993. But here we have some data partially hetero anamnestic [As
1 interpreted], which the doctor collected from Mr. Ajanic himself and which
2 testify to a prior psychiatric treatment of Mr. Ajanic.
3 Q. This information does not enable you to consider or to comment on
4 his mental condition in the summer of 1993; correct?
5 A. You are right. But it absolutely does enable me to discuss
6 Mr. Ajanic as a psychiatric patient who was a psychiatric patient even
7 before 1993.
8 Q. Well, how do you know he was a psychiatric patient before 1993.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters's correction, 1996.
10 MR. STRINGER: I'm going to ask you another question. I think we
11 had an interpretation problem there.
12 Q. You're not able to comment on the witness's ability to
13 correctly -- to form memories or to recall memories then, in the summer of
14 1993. All you know is that you think he had been a person receiving some
15 form of mental treatment at some time before then or sometime after then?
16 A. That much is true, but I cannot not take into account the
17 information about his prior treatment. That's one. And second, if
18 Mr. Ajanic was hospitalised in a serious way for the first time in 1996
19 and received serious treatment, psychiatric treatment, it is only to be
20 expected that such diagnoses would reflect, negatively of course,
21 his ability to recollect events from 1993 and the period before that.
22 I believe that these two points should be emphasised.
23 Q. Dr. Begic, what you've just said, sir, though is an assumption
24 on your part. You really don't have any basis to assert that this
25 individual did not have the ability to recall in 1993; correct? You
1 simply don't know whether this gentleman was affected or not affected in
3 A. Correct. But I don't know that he was healthy either, according
4 to what I see, it seems that he wasn't.
5 Q. Do you know, in the former Yugoslavia, was it ever possible that
6 someone could -- someone convicted of crime might be placed in a mental
7 facility and by going to a mental facility, they would receive a much
8 shorter sentence of imprisonment than if they were to go to a prison?
9 A. If I may repeat your question to see if I understood it correctly,
10 you're asking whether I'm aware of anyone in the territory of former
11 Yugoslavia, in order to avoid or shorten his prison sentence, to -- opting
12 for a mental institution instead? Did I understand you correctly?
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par?
14 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I object to this question. It's asking
15 for speculation by the witness about something that cannot possibly have
16 any ground in -- basis in fact.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, don't answer that question by
18 yourself. This witness is an expert witness and he -- I think he's an
19 expert in this field for quite a long time. He must be familiar with the
20 situation in the former Yugoslavia.
21 You may proceed, Mr. Stringer.
22 MR. STRINGER:
23 Q. Dr. Begic, what if I suggested to you that this individual spent
24 three years at Sokolac as an alternative, if you will, to spending a much
25 longer period of time in a normal prison? Is that not possible?
1 A. First of all, I cannot talk about the former Yugoslavia because I
2 became a psychiatrist in 1990, anything that I would say about this would
3 indeed be speculation but I do allow for the possibility that under the
4 former system, there had been abuses in our profession, in the way you
5 suggest. However, I am not aware of any specific instances in order to
6 discuss it for our purpose here.
7 Q. Apart from as you've done in your direct examination, talking
8 about general attributes of these three disorders: Psychosis, amnesia,
9 and debilitas or mental retardation, apart from the general
10 characteristics or attributes of those disorders, sir, you're not in a
11 position to shed any light on this gentleman's mental condition or mental
12 health when he testified here in these proceedings last January; correct?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. So you're not really in a position to tell us whether he had the
15 capacity at that time to recall facts, to recall memories, and to testify
16 about those memories?
17 A. I was not able to do that, but I repeat, my opinion is based on
18 the document under discussion here.
19 Q. Dr. Begic, are you familiar with a document or a book that's
20 called "The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV"?
21 A. Yes, I am.
22 Q. I want to talk a little bit about the diagnosis that Dr. Omanovic
23 made, which I take it you assumed and accepted as being a correct
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And it would assist me when we talk about these three disorders
2 whether it's possible to try and place them somewhere within the
3 categories or the codes of the DSM-IV. On the psychosis, it sounds to me
4 as though the diagnosis here is an alcohol-induced psychosis. Is that
5 correct or am I incorrect on that?
6 A. Most probably, the diagnosis is alcohol-induced psychosis, as we
7 see in this first part, psychosis verisimilite alcoholic.
8 Q. And in that -- is that a disorder, sir, in which episodes of
9 psychosis, then, can appear or would appear in association either with
10 alcohol use or alcohol withdrawal?
11 A. As I already said, in response to a question from the Defence, one
12 of the forms is encountered in the withdrawal syndrome, that is an acute
13 form. A more chronic form appears during consumption of alcohol.
14 Q. Now, getting back again to 877.22, the Omanovic letter, part of it
15 says this:" The patient was admitted as psychotic case, most probably in
16 the state of alcohol abstinence." Now that would suggest to me, sir, that
17 this is a psychotic episode resulting from abstinence or withdrawal from
19 A. That was most probably the case.
20 Q. Now, also the next reference here in the initial diagnosis is to
21 the amnesic syndrome or to amnesia. Do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. My question here, sir, is whether, in this situation, the amnesic
24 disorder is linked to the alcohol withdrawal that has given rise to the
25 psychotic episode.
1 A. That is possible, but it doesn't rule out the possibility of other
2 causes either, and these other causes I enumerated earlier. In any case,
3 this documentation is too scant to go into any detailed discussion of
4 other possible causes. Basically I'm saying that we cannot rule out
5 causes other than alcohol.
6 Q. But based on the information provided, really, it would simply be
7 speculation for us to consider other bases or causes of amnesic
9 A. It would be speculation, but it would still be based on the
10 clinical picture provided by Dr. Omanovic, who observed and treated this
11 person for all of eight days.
12 Q. So it appears, sir, then that we have an initial diagnosis linking
13 both a psychotic episode and also the amnesic syndrome to alcohol, either
14 use of alcohol but more likely withdrawal from alcohol?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And then we have a final diagnosis which now has introduced a
17 third term, final diagnosis indicated is psychosis episodica and then in
18 brackets, debilitas mentis. Now, my first question, Dr. Begic, is whether
19 the psychosis episodica that's referred to is something that's different
20 from the psychosis that is included in the initial diagnosis. Different
21 terminology is used. I don't know whether that's a different diagnosis.
22 A. It is possible that this episode of psychosis, as the final
23 diagnosis describes it, is just a different picture of the same syndrome
24 that was observed at the beginning of the treatment. It is, however, also
25 possible that this diagnosis of retardation was correct even at an early
1 age, that is from birth, but was diagnosed only after his admission to the
2 hospital due to evident delirium. Both possibilities hold equally.
3 Q. This final diagnosis, and I'm focussing on the psychosis episodica
4 now, as a lay person that tells me or that suggests to me that this is a
5 person who suffers episodes of psychosis. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes. That is the situation with -- which is possible with mental
7 retardation. Of course not only with mental retardation. There is also a
8 possibility of normal functioning over varying periods of time, but it is
9 interspersed with deteriorations which are psychotic in nature. It can
10 run parallel to schizophrenia and it is a picture presenting improvements
11 and deteriorations.
12 Q. I think you've answered my next question but I'll ask it any way.
13 When one talks about episodes of psychosis or psychotic episodes, that
14 would seem -- that would imply to me also the existence of episodes of
15 lucidity, episodes of saneness, episodes in which the person can function
16 at a more normal level, make accurate memories and to recall memories
18 A. The person does function at a more normal level, in view of the
19 absence of psychotic symptoms. However, it is not complete normalcy when
20 we have retardation. In a stationary situation, where we have a patient
21 with this diagnosis, when the psychotic episode sets in and is over, he
22 resumes functioning more or less normally but at a less adequate level
23 cognitively speaking than a real, normal person would.
24 Q. Okay, now moving down this letter from Dr. Omanovic, he indicates
25 therapy prescribed, do you see that, therapy prescribed.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, Dr. Begic, I don't want to you speculate or to tell us what
3 one would expect the therapy to be for someone who has these disorders. I
4 want to know -- I want to ask you simply, do you know what was prescribed
5 in the case of Mr. Ajanic?
6 A. I am not aware of the therapy prescribed but what I would
7 prescribe in this situation would be at least three different drugs.
8 Q. Do you know the extent to which the therapy prescribed was
9 successful in treating any of these disorders? And again I'm talking
10 concretely about the witness. Not in abstract terms.
11 A. Unfortunately, I don't know.
12 Q. Then that means, sir, that you do not know the extent to which
13 the witness may still have been affected or suffering from any of these
14 disorders at the time he testified here in earlier this year; is that
16 A. It is partially correct. What I mean is the following. If we
17 agree about this diagnosis of retardation, it is certain that the man
18 suffered at the time when he testified from all the consequences of mental
19 retardation. It is possible that his problem with alcohol was under
20 control at the time. He may have avoided subsequent delerical episodes
21 but based on this report, all I can say is that at the time when he
22 testified, he must have been in the state of mental health that I
23 described and which is defined by debilitas or mental retardation.
24 Q. Just to sum up that last point, the psychosis, the amnesic
25 syndrome are treatable, they can come and go, they can get better, they
1 can get worse over time. However, it's the mental retardation that is
2 going to be the constant throughout all of this?
3 A. Mental retardation is a constant. However, an alcoholic suffering
4 from alcohol-induced psychosis is a person who -- whose ability to
5 function is, at least in part, permanently affected. There are various
6 segments of functioning, various aspects, and in each one of them, he may
7 present partially-sane, adequate behaviour, but in another part, he would
8 be affected by his condition.
9 Q. Dr. Begic, could you take now the other exhibit, 877.23? This is
10 your opinion letter.
11 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, we got a little off the schedule
12 with the break. I don't know what the Trial Chamber's preference here is
13 in terms of the next break or I can continue, I can break.
14 JUDGE LIU: How long are you going to be in your
16 MR. STRINGER: I'm about halfway through my outline,
17 Mr. President. I think if we pressed on, I could finish the
18 cross-examination this evening. If we break for a half hour, I think it's
19 unlikely I would finish today.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par?
21 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object to the
22 Prosecutor being allowed so much time, almost twice as much as we had for
23 examination-in-chief. We may take three or four days asking the witness
24 all sorts of questions without ever touching upon the essence of his
25 testimony. That is why I object to such a lengthy cross-examination. I
1 hope you will rule that the Prosecutor will have as much time as we had,
2 no more.
3 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, you ever to understand that this
4 witness is an expert witness and his statement furnished to us, we could
5 read his statement by ourselves. So your job in the direct examination is
6 to draw our attention to the particular points which are mentioned in
7 his report, in his statement. But the Prosecution, the other part, they
8 have to ask a lot of questions concerning this report. But that's
10 Well, Mr. Stringer, we could sit until you finish, but that will
11 be too long for the interpreters and for the tape to run. So maybe we
12 could break for 20 minutes and see whether you could finish your
13 cross-examination today.
14 MR. STRINGER: That sounds fine, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll resume at 20 minutes past 6.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 5.57 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 6.21 p.m.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer. Please continue.
19 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Dr. Begic, now I'd like to turn to your own opinion letter. This
21 is the document marked 877.23. I just want to -- and this is actually
22 going to be fairly brief. I want to ask you just a couple of things that
23 are contained in the section of your letter that is the opinion. First of
24 all, right there at number 1, what you said is that with this patient, to
25 quote your words, "The clinical picture is unclear." And it have in the
1 base of it, diagnoses of several psychiatric entities. And then you go on
2 to mention the three conditions that we've been discussing. My question,
3 sir, is: Your statement that the clinical picture was unclear, is that
4 because you had such limited information to go on in even giving this
6 A. No. I said it because a vague and unclear clinical picture means
7 that it is not clear. It would be clear if we were dealing with only one
8 disorder. That is only delirium or only psychosis or something third.
9 When you have two or three disorders overlapping, then the clinical
10 picture becomes unclear, that is complex.
11 Q. Okay. Let me put it to you this way, then. And actually we'll go
12 to the last sentence of your letter because this is something that you
13 refer to in your testimony and I wanted to make sure we cover that. The
14 last sentence says that a more accurate evaluation of the patient's
15 condition can be produced by the inspection of other medical documentation
16 or psychiatric and psychological examination of the patient himself. So
17 now, recognising, sir, that you did say that, let me ask you this question
18 again: Would the clinical picture have been clearer if you had been given
19 access to more documentation, if you had been given access to the patient
21 A. I believe it would have been as complex but perhaps it would be
22 clearer as to the distinctions drawn among these three disorders, that is
23 which one is the primary one, which one should be accorded greater weight.
24 Q. Okay. Now, and then moving down, you've referred to the diagnosis
25 that you were given, the alcoholic psychosis, and again, based on your
1 testimony, I believe it's fair to say that this is a disorder in which
2 psychosis, episodes of psychosis can occur in conjunction with or related
3 to alcohol use or alcohol withdrawal. Alcohol is in one way or the other
4 the triggering event, if you will?
5 A. That's right, with one correction. This diagnosis was not mine.
6 This was Dr. Omanovic's diagnosis and I merely quoted it, in a way of
8 Q. I understand. You accepted all of his diagnoses without
9 exception, you assumed they were correct diagnoses and then you began your
10 own work?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. Now, sticking with the alcohol-induced psychosis, if the
13 witness -- if Mr. Ajanic was not experiencing such an episode in 1993,
14 when the events happened that he testified about, then wouldn't that tend
15 to support the view that he had a greater capacity to form memories of
16 those events?
17 A. Well, if not in 1993, if he did not suffer any psychological
18 changes at that time, then yes. If he did suffer any changes, then the
19 answer would be no.
20 Q. Okay. But we don't really know what was his condition in the
21 summer of 1993; correct?
22 A. We do not.
23 Q. And what we've just said could also apply to last January of this
24 year, when he came and testified in the Tribunal? If he was not
25 experiencing an episode of psychosis at that time, then that would tend to
1 support the view is that he had a greater capacity to recall memories from
3 A. Regardless of whether in January this year he had or didn't have a
4 psychosis, he was diagnosed with debilitas, with mental retardation
5 which in itself can result in some cognitive dysfunctioning. That is the
6 mental retardation is lifelong thing, if it exists, that is.
7 Q. Okay, we are going to talk about the mental retardation in a few
8 moments. Let me ask you this about the amnesic syndrome, the amnesia.
9 You mentioned in your direct examination, you referred to the Korsakov
10 Syndrome which understand is a move severe form of amnesia that is related
11 to alcohol abuse; is that correct?
12 A. It is.
13 Q. Just so we are clear, the initial diagnoses of Dr. Omanovic, which
14 you accepted as correct, make no reference to Kosakov syndrome?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. In your opinion in respect of the amnesic syndrome, you said that
17 the causes of such a condition can be in the alcoholic addiction but many
18 others as well. My question, then, is whether in fact in this case, the
19 only condition which is indicated would be the alcoholic condition? There
20 is nothing else that you know about this gentleman that would have
21 suggested an alternative basis for the amnesic syndrome?
22 A. We do not know that.
23 Q. We don't know it because we only have the information that we got
24 from Dr. Omanovic; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, you haven't read the gentleman's testimony. He testified
2 about a number of events that occurred in 1993. The fact that he was able
3 to recall events, the fact that he did not claim that he could not recall,
4 is in fact inconsistent with the amnesic syndrome, correct?
5 A. Well, as you put it, correct, but had I examined this gentleman,
6 perhaps I would have asked him some other things, and then I'd have been
7 able to see whether really --
8 Q. Okay. But assuming and again you don't know this because you
9 don't know the testimony, assuming that he testified about events, then
10 this would put us not into the realm of amnesia but rather it would move
11 us over into the other realm of the extent or the weight that could be
12 given to his recollection?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And that's a realm in which judges and finders of fact are always
15 called upon to use their own judgement to judge for themselves the
16 reliability and weight to be given any witness who recalls about events
17 which occurred in the past; correct?
18 A. If the Court does not need the assistance of expert witnesses,
19 then the Judges can do it themselves, of course.
20 Q. Now, the last set of questions I've got, Dr. Begic, relates to the
21 debilitas the mental retardation. In your opinion letter, you said that
22 debilitas is a stage of mental retardation. Now, my first question is:
23 What stage was this particular gentleman suffering from? At what stage or
24 at what degree of mental retardation did he have?
25 A. The IQ in debilitas cases is between 50 and 69. So if the normal
1 is 90 to 110, 80 to 90 is slightly below the average intelligence and
2 anything below 70 is mental retardation. So this is a form of mental
4 Q. So Dr. Begic, just so I understand, it seems to me that the use of
5 the word debilitas then implies at least in your field a certain range
6 of IQ. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is there a different word that would apply to cases of mental
9 retardation below 50?
10 A. Yes, there is. There are several. Idiocy, for instance is one of
11 the words that apply to those below 50, which is severe mental
13 Q. Okay. And then again is there a different terminology that would
14 suggest to you an IQ of in the range of 70 to 80?
15 A. It is so-called psychological, not a psychiatric assessment
16 because psychologists do the testing and the term used is below the
17 average intelligence, between 70 and 80, below the average, 90 to 110
19 Q. You've anticipated my next question which was this: We don't
20 have before us any assessment of the IQ of this person. We don't know
21 whether that was done by Dr. Omanovic. You're not in a position to assess
22 the extent to which this person suffered from mental retardation, mild,
23 severe, moderate; is that correct?
24 A. We do not know what was Mr. Ajanic's IQ, but within this range
25 between 50 and 70, those who have an IQ between 50 and 70 are classified
1 as mentally retarded with debilitas and that is what all the authors
2 agree on.
3 Q. These are nonetheless individuals who have the ability, can
4 function at -- can function in society independently, and certainly are
5 not excluded from giving evidence in proceedings of this nature, are
7 A. That is true.
8 Q. If I were to tell you that the witness had a family, worked as a
9 labourer, self-employed as a labourer, these are things that would not be
10 inconsistent with the IQ in the range you've identified?
11 A. I repeat, I did not identify him. It was Dr. Omanovic who did
12 it. But it is true, as I've already answered, the Defence's question,
13 with this IQ, a person can be married, perform some simple jobs, and be
14 part of the environment. But people surrounding such a person, even a lay
15 people, can observe, can spot the change in the behaviour of such people.
16 Q. I'm going to talk about that in just a moment. I want to move
17 back very quickly to one last point on the amnesic syndrome. At the
18 beginning of your cross-examination, I showed you the witness statement
19 that this person provided to investigators of the Prosecutor's Office
20 here. I also referred to his testimony in these proceedings from last
21 January. My question, Dr. Begic, is: Is it correct or is it acceptable
22 to you as an expert that a lay person, such as myself, could read his
23 witness statement from 1998, read his testimony from 2002, and, based on
24 similarities and consistency, make an informed judgement that in fact he's
25 not affected by amnesic syndrome, at least in respect of the events about
1 which he's testifying?
2 A. It is difficult for me to say yes or no without an interview with
3 the patient.
4 Q. Moving back now to the last third point again, the issue of
5 debilitas, one of the attribute you've testified about is that a person
6 suffering that disorder, mental retardation is susceptible to suggestion
7 or persuasion by others.
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. Again, my question -- my question relates to his testimony in
10 these proceedings. Could a lay person, such as myself, make an informed
11 judgement about the extent to which he was or was not subject to
12 suggestion? Could that perhaps provide some guidance to me as to the
13 extent to which that he could be influenced and open to suggestion? That
14 was an extremely poorly asked question and I'll put it to you again, if
15 you like.
16 A. Well, specifically I cannot say much, as I have said I do not know
17 the patient. All I can say is basing it on one of the syndromes always
18 present in such cases of mental retardation, and that is the
19 susceptibility to other people, so whether Mr. Ajanic was more or less
20 suggestible I really cannot say and whether you or somebody else could
21 recognise it as a lay person, it is very difficult for me to answer that.
22 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
23 JUDGE LIU: Any re-examination, Mr. Par?
24 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Not many but there
25 are some.
1 Re-examined by Mr. Par:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, let's start from the end, that is the
3 susceptibility to suggestion, which could be one of the problems of this
4 witness. As a layman, what do you think? Could I think that it would be
5 suggestive, it would be leading this witness, if somebody told him you're
6 going to testify in the case -- in The Hague on this and that subject.
7 This testimony such and such. And when you get to The Hague, we shall
8 read out to you the statement that you gave and then we shall ask you
9 questions about this statement to see if you remember it, and then you
10 will proceed to testify. Whether I as a layman could think that such a
11 patient, if it is said something like that, would he then accept this
12 suggestion and would he then be susceptible, that is act upon it?
13 A. Well, my answer is similar to the one I gave to the previous
14 question. A layman could assume that, but without a -- without contact
15 with a patient, with Mr. Ajanic, it is difficult for me to say to which
16 extent and in which areas he would succumb to suggestions.
17 Q. Doctor, part of the cross-examination by the Prosecutor had to do
18 with the statements that this witness gave before the Court and earlier,
19 and mostly to -- and the chief thing was to point out that you were not
20 informed about what he said on those occasions. Now, if I tell you that
21 this witness said that he was still drinking, that he was on medication,
22 he also said that he had to undergo some treatment, if I tell you that
23 many witnesses, when asked whether they knew him, whether they'd known him
24 over a longer period of time and what they knew about him, and they said
25 that he was an alcohol-prone person, that he was an asocial person, that
1 his family life was disrupted, that is that he had married many times, had
2 many children and so on and so forth, would that kind of information
3 corroborate the diagnosis that you had the opportunity to see, that is the
4 diagnosis made by other persons, or would it bring it into question?
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer?
6 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, we don't concede that testimony in
7 these proceedings is consistent with the characterisations just made by
8 Mr. Par. It's not necessary to go into more detail but we simply don't
9 accept that as a hypothetical.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well --
11 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I wanted to answer
12 because the examination was not consistent, because in a series of his
13 questions, my learned friend Stringer said also we do not have
14 information, he's got a family, he's working and so on. So how else do I
15 respond but by asking questions like this? But of course if you think I
16 should withdraw my question, I will do so immediately.
17 JUDGE CLARK: Well, Mr. Par, we heard various questions of this
18 gentleman but I don't think any witness told us that he had a number of
19 wives. He may have had a lot of children. I don't believe anybody -- but
20 it doesn't matter. It wasn't --
21 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] That is so. Very well. I shall move on
22 with my questions.
23 Q. Doctor, when this Defence asked you to give -- to analyse a
24 document with the diagnosis, did you have any reason to doubt this
1 A. No, I didn't.
2 Q. Today, after we've spent several hours talking about this
3 diagnosis, do you have any reason to doubt that this diagnosis now and
4 possibly change your opinion?
5 A. No.
6 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I have no further
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Any questions from the Judges? Judge Diarra?
10 Questioned by the Court:
11 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Witness,
12 the physical communication with Ajanic, wouldn't it help to you come to a
13 more accurate, a more precise opinion about his mental condition? You
14 said several times that you were sorry that you had not seen him but what
15 is it that prevented you from communicating with him directly?
16 A. To begin with, I said only once that unfortunately I had no
17 information of that kind. I did not repeatedly say that I was sorry I had
18 not seen him. But indubitably direct contact would have helped me to
19 form an expert opinion which would be based on more facts. The third
20 question was communication? No, nothing prevented me from communicating
21 with that patient but my task was to consider, to analyse medical
22 documents. Had they asked me to do something else, then as an expert
23 witness, I would have acted accordingly.
24 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Judge Clark?
1 JUDGE CLARK: I have a few questions, doctor, and thank you for
2 giving your expert testimony. As I understand your position here, is that
3 your purpose or the purpose for the Defence, seeking your opinion, was so
4 that you would first of all explain the findings to us who are non-medical
5 people, of the very brief note furnished by Dr. Omanovic. I think there
6 is no dispute about that. And secondly, I think you were asked to provide
7 your expert opinion as to whether such a person could give high-quality
8 evidence or to comment on the quality of such a person's evidence. Is
9 that the purpose really of your opinion?
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE CLARK: Did you at any stage, as one professional to
12 another, ring Dr. Omanovic to let him know that you were reviewing these
13 clinical notes?
14 A. No.
15 JUDGE CLARK: Doctor, do you even know that Dr. Omanovic was the
16 treating doctor, because I notice on the letter, he's the head of the
17 department but he calls it Dr. Sefer Mujic's Clinic. So do we even know
18 that the person who signed the letter actually treated or even saw
19 Mr. Ajanic?
20 A. Yes. Dr. Omanovic is obviously the head of that department. The
21 name Safet Mujic or Sefer Mujic is the name of the clinic. The clinic was
22 only named after the man and the man himself has not worked at the clinic
23 for a long time now.
24 JUDGE CLARK: I thought that he might have been the consultant of
25 that particular psychiatric department but if you say that that's the name
1 of the ward or the clinic, we will move on from that. Now, doctor, my
2 understanding of the clinical condition, psychosis, is that frequently it
3 is acute and temporary and susceptible to treatment; is that correct?
4 A. Generally speaking, yes.
5 JUDGE CLARK: There is no suggestion that it's a chronic psychosis
6 in this very brief extract, it seems to me, of clinical notes?
7 A. No.
8 JUDGE CLARK: Doctor, I've read your CV and I note that you were a
9 senior lecturer at the medical school. Do you actually and have you in
10 the last few years actually seen and treated patients or is your position
11 academic and scientific?
12 A. I said at the beginning that I spent part of my time working in
13 the hospital, and I have done that in this past few years. I worked -- I
14 work in infirmaries, I worked in the hospital. It is a special kind of
15 so-called cumulative employment.
16 JUDGE CLARK: Now, I noticed where you came from or where you were
17 born, and that unhappy time is obviously a place that a lot of people have
18 heard of, in the context of the break-up of Yugoslavia. So can I take it,
19 doctor, that as a clinician, that you must on many occasions have met
20 people from your country who have suffered acute psychological trauma
21 during the war?
22 A. Unfortunately, I have.
23 JUDGE CLARK: I agree with you, it is unfortunate, but doctor,
24 would a fair number of those people, in common with people who suffer from
25 psychological trauma, have episodes of alcohol abuse?
1 A. People in their middle age, yes, but younger people would turn to
2 other addictive substances.
3 JUDGE CLARK: Again, sadly. Doctor, if you had a person who,
4 following a psychological trauma and this is a middle-aged man, we will
5 leave him aside, let's just look at another patient. If one had a patient
6 who had suffered from a psychological trauma, a fairly acute one, who had
7 been a prisoner and lost a child in fairly harrowing circumstances or lost
8 a wife or lost their whole family, and had an alcohol episode followed by
9 a psychotic episode. It's a long question so you have a person who
10 suffered from trauma first, psychological trauma, who, because of whatever
11 substance he then abuses, suffers from a psychotic episode, would you
12 write that person off forever as being capable of giving reliable
14 A. No, I wouldn't write them off.
15 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you.
16 JUDGE LIU: Any questions out of Judges' questions? Yes,
17 Mr. Par?
18 Further examination by Mr. Par:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Picking up on this last question by Honourable
20 Judge Clark, to what extent would you believe evidence given by that
22 A. I would first have to talk to them or look at a medical document
23 of this kind, in order to be able to discuss their credibility or
25 Q. Just another question, doctor: In your practice, would it be at
1 all possible, for instance, we now asked to you give your expert opinion
2 on this document, as lawyers, but in your practice, would it at all be
3 possible for Mr. Halil Ajanic to come and see you in order to receive an
4 assessment? Do you have any communication with your colleagues? Do you
5 perform such expertise?
6 A. --
7 JUDGE CLARK: You don't have to answer that question. That is an
8 improper question for you to put, Mr. Par. You had the opportunity to do
9 that before you called your expert, not after you call your expert.
10 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] This was just a question that sprang to
11 mind after the question of Judge Diarra who asked whether the doctor had
12 had an opportunity to see the patient at all. And that's what I wanted to
13 clarify. But I can rephrase it.
14 Q. Can you go to another state to give an expert opinion?
15 A. No. But if I may just say one thing, when the Court requires a
16 doctor's expert opinion, their patient has to be interviewed. If the
17 request comes from a law office, then the person in question can very
18 easily avoid it, avoid this examination, even if -- especially if they are
19 in another state and especially in the same state.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Of course, I know it's not my turn to
22 ask questions but Judge Diarra raised a very interesting issue, which I
23 kept raising for over a year. Who is allowed to contact witnesses? I
24 studied all the documentation available to me. Witnesses must not be
25 contacted by the Defence and we have now been reminded again, in their
1 latest letter concerning rebuttal. Of course the Defence cannot contact
2 the witness and especially their expert. I'm not surprised by this.
3 After all, I've gone through here, but I want to draw the Trial Chamber's
4 attention that we were not allowed to contact Prosecution witnesses.
5 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Krsnik? Could I just answer that? I think we
6 are talking about two totally different things. What you're talking about
7 is procedure within the legal system but what I understand Judge Diarra to
8 have put to the honourable doctor here and it's a question which I posed
9 myself, is that before, generally before a doctor gives an opinion in
10 relation to the condition of a patient or someone else's patient, that the
11 obvious path he would like to follow would be to have the permission from
12 the patient to examine him. In no jurisdiction that I know of can you
13 oblige the patient to submit but this is just medical etiquette and
14 protocol. I think there is a distinction between talking to a witness for
15 the Prosecution and for an expert psychiatrist to seek permission from
16 Mr. Ajanic's doctor and Mr. Ajanic for the opportunity to examine him and
17 I think that's what the basic difference is, and Judge Diarra and I wanted
18 to know was there anything preventing this doctor from contacting the
19 doctor whose letter he had received and say, "Would it be possible for us
20 to have a joint consultation or a joint examination of this witness?"
21 That's quite different from the other difficulty that you're expounding
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] With all due respect, and even awe, I
24 beg to differ, or else I failed to explain my point properly. I don't
25 want to engage in a long discussion but I believe that it is simply in the
1 interests of justice and this Court did order that forensic experts should
2 be brought in, if there is any indication that the witness may not be
3 reliable, in such cases, it is very easy for the Court to order that he be
4 examined by an expert.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, as Judge Clark said to you, that we
6 are talking about different matter and we don't think it's proper to
7 discuss this matter while the witness is still here.
8 Witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to help us.
9 The usher will show you out of the room. We all wish you good luck in
10 your future.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 JUDGE LIU: At this stage, are there any documents to tender into
13 evidence? Mr. Par?
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I tender two
16 documents, the first one is the finding of the expert and the other is the
17 letter containing diagnosis, and I kindly ask the Registrar to give me
18 numbers for identification. I'm sorry I didn't provide them earlier.
19 JUDGE LIU: Well, you better inform me about the number used in
20 the Prosecutor's binders. I believe that in that binder, those two
21 documents are also there. Is that document P877.22 and P877.23?
22 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Correct, Mr. President. And thank you
23 for your assistance.
24 JUDGE LIU: Any objections?
25 MR. STRINGER: No objections, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. These two documents are admitted
2 into evidence. And Madam Registrar will give it proper number with D2/.
3 Are there any documents you would like to tender, Mr. Stringer?
4 MR. STRINGER: No, Mr. President, I did want to ask permission to
5 make one very brief response to some of the remarks last made by
6 Mr. Krsnik on the issue of contacting Prosecution witnesses.
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, we are five minutes over time. If it's
8 extremely important, we will give you another time to make your statement,
9 but now, we have to recess.
10 And tomorrow morning, we will sit in the same courtroom at 9.00.
11 So we will resume at 9.00 tomorrow morning.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
13 7.05 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
14 the 17th day of September, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.