1 Thursday, 26 June 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [Accused Nikolic not present]
5 [The witness entered court]
6 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, Madam Registrar. If you could call
8 the case, please.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
10 everyone. This is case number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin
11 Popovic et al.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, ma'am.
13 Amongst the accused, Drago Nikolic is not present and we have had
14 a filing, Mr. Bourgon.
15 MR. BOURGON: Indeed, Mr. President. Mr. Nikolic will not attend
16 proceedings today and we will do everything that he will attend as of
17 Monday. Thank you, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And we have a waiver just for the
20 The other accused are present.
21 From the Defence teams I notice the absence of Madam Nikolic,
22 Mr. Lazarevic, Mr. Krgovic, Mr. Haynes.
23 Prosecution, today it's Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Mitchell.
24 The witness is present.
25 Mr. Zivanovic -- I take it that there are no preliminaries. I'm
1 not asking for any. Mr. Zivanovic.
2 WITNESS: DUSAN DUNJIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Examination by Mr. Zivanovic: [Continued]
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Good afternoon, Professor Dunjic.
7 A. Good afternoon.
8 Q. Yesterday we left it off with the mass graves of Nova Kasaba 6, 7
9 and 8. I will go immediately to the grave number 8, since I saw that in
10 the previous two there were only one or two bodies. I went through the
11 findings of your report, between the pages 51 and 71 in the B/C/S, or 44
12 to 65 in English.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: To 67.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. That would be 1D1070. I saw that in those findings, I believe
16 there were precisely 24, you mentioned therein that the injury may have
17 been caused by a shot from a distance as a part of the combat. I will
18 cite an example from one of the findings, which is page -- I think you
19 have that in B/C/S. We only have it in English here. This is page 57 of
20 your report.
21 There is a comment of yours that the description of injuries is a
22 correct one and that it corresponds with the finding. However, you say
23 that the cause of death can be discussed and you conclude by saying that
24 the injury could have been caused from a shot from afar, as part of
25 combat. What did you base that conclusion on?
1 A. This conclusion or comment I provided contains two parts. The
2 first part refers to the principal injuries and we go back to the autopsy
3 report where the injuries were described in detail. It is an example of
4 a proper explanation of the injuries as required by the profession.
5 Q. Could you please slow down for the sake of the interpreters?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Actually, I anticipated the interpreters making an
7 indication to you. Please slow down and do not overlap. Thank you.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have the injuries precisely
9 described therein, and hence my comment that this was a proper
10 description of injuries. However, what prompted me to make the
11 conclusion that it may have been as part of combat from afar was the fact
12 that the projectile was stuck in the scapula and in the upper thorax.
13 This indication, that is the projectile being left in the body, is the
14 proof telling us that it arrived from afar or with reduced energy.
15 A projectile fired from a firearm, for example a rifle, and
16 yesterday I mentioned what the speeds are, slows down the greater the
17 distance. A projectile fired from up close would have gone through the
18 body for sure. A projectile could be slowed down when encountering an
19 obstacle along the way before hitting the body. It can be slowed down by
20 any means and then it remains in the body. For that reason, I said that
21 may have been an injury caused by the war as part of combat. I mentioned
22 that as a possibility given that it arrived at a somewhat reduced speed
23 and it remained in the body.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. If I understood you well, when one says as part of the war
1 conflict, that would mean that it was fired from a certain distance?
2 A. Yes. When we are discussing the distance, as I mentioned
3 yesterday, it was not determined here. No analysis was conducted. As
4 the reporters themselves say in the collective report, they say that they
5 did not analyse the distance of firing pursuant to some standard forensic
6 elements used to establish the distance between the rifle barrel and the
7 body itself. That is why I commented a part of the final report by
8 Mr. Haglund when he said that the projectile could have been fired point
10 Q. If there was a possibility that the projectile was fired from a
11 distance, can you tell us approximately what the distance could have
13 A. I have to rely on theory now. For a firearm or rifle, anything
14 beyond three or five metres with such weapons is considered a distance,
15 given that there are no gunpowder traces left on the body. For side
16 arms, hand guns, with a short barrel, that distance is over 100
17 centimetres. That is the distance between the barrel and the body. If
18 less than that, one can find gunpowder traces. The research conducted by
19 Professor Popov from St. Petersburg, and I contacted him personally, as
20 part of the research he managed to detect gunpowder traces at distances
21 greater than 40 metres. This surprised me greatly. I wasn't aware of
22 such a possibility. And he explained to us that a projectile travelling
23 through space and the part towards the bottom of the bullet sucks in a
24 certain amount of gunpowder which then arrives at the body itself as
25 well. To be precise, any distance greater than the range of gunpowder
1 particles fired from a rifle is considered a distance which probably
2 would not leave any trace on the body.
3 Q. Now you're discussing distances from the point of view of
4 gunpowder particles and traces. However, I'm interested in the other
5 type of distance you've been talking about, which has to do with the fact
6 whether the wound is only an entry wound or an entry/exit wound. In
7 other words, whether the bullet had left the body.
8 A. This type is quite important as well and it depends on numerous
9 factors. If one finds a bullet in a body, without the bullet having hit
10 an important bone, such as the femur or pelvis, one of the greater bones,
11 as well as some other bones, which can slow it down ... for example we
12 have an example here of the bullet hitting the scapula, which has the
13 ribs on one side and the soft tissue on the other, projectiles fired from
14 a rifle usually go through the scapula. The fact that it remained inside
15 the scapula points to the fact that it had lost sufficient energy for it
16 to remain there.
17 Q. In relation to this answer of yours, can one estimate the
18 distance of the firing of a bullet which failed to penetrate the scapula?
19 A. Speaking from the point of forensic medicine, it is very
20 difficult. One would need to carry out additional analyses that have to
21 do with gunpowder particles and we could have to know some other elements
22 which I, as a forensic medical expert, can take into account, say at the
23 place where the cartridge was found, et cetera, and in that context, one
24 can try and assess the damage that could have been caused by such a
25 bullet if there were obstacles in between or to try and come up with
1 another explanation as to why the bullet had slowed down. What I know
2 from my practice is that projectiles fired from the same firearm had
3 different ranges and which very much depended on the humidity of the
4 gunpowder, the type of charge, et cetera.
5 Q. I said that there were some 24 reports there. They are all
6 similar in terms of contents and with the same conclusion. I suppose
7 that your explanation regarding all of those reports concerning the
8 possibility of the injuries being caused by -- as part of combat, would
9 be approximately the same. Of course, I can cite the pages precisely and
10 we can have a look at all those reports, if needed.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
12 MR. MITCHELL: Objection, leading, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic?
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I'll go through these reports. Thank you.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Let us have a look at the next report. Let us
16 have a look at the report which is at your page 58, and we are about to
17 see it on the screen. We also have an injury to the chest. Could we
18 please have a look at the main injuries?
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [In English] the report said the display is
20 disclosed to us yesterday. It is at our -- on our exhibit list, just a
21 moment. It is CD -- CD from 25th of June 2008. It was wrongly marked as
22 24th of June 2008. And all these documents are from this CD we got from
23 the Prosecution yesterday.
24 Yes. ERN number is X0046006.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: If I could just clear the record. This was
2 material that was given to the Defence years ago that we assisted them in
3 finding in the record so we have just given it to them. This isn't some
4 sort of late disclosure, just so you're clear on that.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, that's correct, sorry.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, thank you both.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: We just got the English translation of these
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Professor, we only have the English version on the screen, but
12 you have already explained the main injuries and that is what I wanted to
13 focus on. In your comment at page 58 of your report, it says that it
14 also could have been caused by combat, especially with a view of the
15 projectile's remaining in the body.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What is your explanation for the position you took regarding this
18 autopsy report?
19 A. We have an injury to the thorax and a part of the projectile, we
20 have three bullet fragments in the lower and upper arm. We have a
21 characteristic injury to the thorax and in the arm. The direction of the
22 projectile was from the front to the back. The fact that the fragments
23 remained in the soft tissue mean that the projectile had defragmented
24 either when hitting the bone or by hitting an obstacle before reaching
25 the body. In any case, it is characteristic of the injury, and taking
1 into account the nature of the injury to the thorax, we have certain
2 indications as concerns the distance, and that is what made me conclude
3 that it could have been caused by an armed conflict.
4 Q. Let us go to the next report, X 0046021, page 3. That is the
5 next report, the next autopsy report in your report. Page 59.
6 A. I can see it.
7 Q. And on the next page, it is also stated that the injury may have
8 been caused during an armed conflict.
9 A. Yes. We have again injuries to the thorax and the limbs, as well
10 as the hip bone. There is also a bullet fragment in the chest and in the
11 pelvis, as well as in the lower right leg and the left femur, the left
12 thigh. We have projectile fragments here, which means --
13 Q. Let me interrupt you. I was told that there was a technical
14 difficulty in the documents being brought up to the screen. I hope a
15 couple of minutes will suffice to deal with it.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Is this a problem that is going to be solved soon,
17 Madam Registrar? All right.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation].
19 Q. The problem has been solved, it seems, Professor, so may we
20 continue or rather could you continue with your answer. I apologise, I
21 interrupted you. Perhaps you don't remember where you left off.
22 A. That's all right, thank you. This is a properly described
23 injuries in the autopsy report and how they are defined and described.
24 And from these descriptions obviously they are injuries of the
25 extremities, limbs, and the thorax, caused by firearms and projectiles
1 or, rather, elements of the -- of injuries that can be caused when firing
2 is from a distance, in view of the fact as in previous cases that in the
3 tissues and fractures, parts of the projectiles were found.
4 Q. Let's now move on to the next page, 6040, I think the number is.
5 That is also to be found on page 59.
6 A. May I have the Serbian version, please? It is case number 50, so
7 next page, please.
8 Q. No. You don't have it on your screen, or rather you might have
9 the English version on your screen. But I think that is to be found in
10 your own report.
11 A. All right. Thank you. I see.
12 Q. It's page 59 of your own report, body number 50.
13 A. The explanation is the same as in the previous case. The
14 injuries have been correctly defined and described, the head, the trunk
15 or chest, and the limbs, and here we are dealing with a number of
16 radiographically established fragments, bullet fragments, and casing
17 fragments, which indicate that fragmentation occurred either when the
18 bullet hit a bone or through previous fragmentation, but in any case, in
19 these bodies or the bodily remains or remains of the tissues, these
20 elements were detected which can indicate that the bullet came from a
21 distance, that the projectile came from a distance.
22 Q. Would you look at the next report straight away, please? It's on
23 that same page, and that's 6068. Can you explain your conclusions here,
24 please, as far as distance is concerned?
25 A. Yes. What was found here was a number of fragments, although the
1 radiography findings shows a bullet near the rights shoulder. Now, when
2 it says, "Bullet," I assume he means projectile but when you actually say
3 bullet that is the whole thing with the casing, but what is interesting
4 to note here is a fragment of the bullet in the soft tissue of the left
5 leg in the vicinity of the left femur and a bullet fragment within the
6 skull itself. This fragment within the skull itself is interesting for
7 the following reasons. Bullets very rarely are found in the cavity of
8 the skull you, unless they are lodged in the skull bone itself and the
9 thicker structures of the bone, and it doesn't say that here. However,
10 part of the bullet in the skull also indicates that the injury was caused
11 or that that part of the projectile was very slow or had fragmented
12 beforehand, which once again leads to the conclusion that we are dealing
13 with an injury from a distance.
14 Q. Just an explanation. When you say a fragment, do you mean a
15 bullet fragment, a metal fragment, or do you mean something else?
16 A. It says here, "A bullet fragment," whereas I assume that it's the
17 casing or the metal part, because with the word "fragment," that means
18 that it was completely separated and that that is why it lodged there.
19 So all these elements can indicate distance again and an obstacle within
20 that distance.
21 Q. The next case also relates to your conclusion that this injury
22 was possibly caused during a conflict, X0046085, 46085, on page 4. Main
23 injuries described, the cause of death and so on.
24 A. Yes, I can see this. It is case number 65. There are several
25 things that need to be stressed here. First of all, that the remains of
1 the skull are almost stripped, that is the outer description, and there
2 is saponification or putrefaction of the lower extremities. The skull
3 was shattered. That's the general description. And radiographically it
4 was established that there was a metal fragment of the bullet in the left
6 The injuries are described and the conclusion made is that in the
7 area of the skull, that there was no reconstruction, it was later
8 reconstructed, and that there were evident fractures linked up with
9 injuries caused by buck-shot, gunshot. In addition to this injury in the
10 skull area described in this way, there is the -- another fracture of the
11 pelvis and the left thigh bone.
12 Q. [No interpretation].
13 A. In conclusion it says that there are multiple fractures to the
14 trunk and extremities caused by firearms. They are injuries caused by
15 firearms but most probably there are two possibilities, injuries in the
16 head area, the skull, and that some of the shot or parts of the
17 projectile injured the pelvis.
18 Yes, I'd like to apologise for speaking a little fast. The
19 observation that a bullet fragment was found in the left femur tells us
20 that the bullet was fired most probably from a rifle or that kind of
21 firearm. So it's one projectile. Whereas the injuries described in the
22 head area, in the area of the skull, and the elements found, indicate
24 So that this injury, or these injuries, and the different types
25 of injuries, can indicate, may indicate, injuries caused during combat,
1 and the fact that the projectile has lodged there means that it was an
2 injury from a distance.
3 And the third point that I'd like to stress here in this
4 particular case is that the remains of the skeleton were almost bared and
5 that on the lower extremities, the limbs, there was a certain type of
6 putrefaction which is known as saponification. Now, in correlation with
7 the skeletisation and saponification, if we look at one of the bodies and
8 see that a complete skeletisation has taken place and that on the other
9 there is saponification, this might mean that the body was exposed to
10 different environments, a normal environment, in a grave, or in the air,
11 and saponification, whereby the lower extremities where the
12 saponification was noted, that those limbs might have been in a humid
13 environment where humidity was dominant which once again can indicate the
14 fact that the body was exposed to humidity in one area and then later on
15 that the body might have been buried with decay and putrefaction taking
16 place, although saponification is also found in humid grave sites.
17 Q. You mentioned gunshot, buck-shot. Can you tell me, on the basis
18 of your experience as a forensic expert, whether perhaps that indicates
19 any specific type of weapon having been used?
20 A. Yes. Buck-shot -- well, it wasn't described in detail, that is
21 to say the injuries caused here, and buck-shot is used in weapons where
22 the casing has a charge with metal balls. Usually they are circular
23 balls, round balls, and they can differ in size, small, minute ones and
24 big ones, and calibration according to the size of the pellets, so
25 whether the, as the small pellets or larger pellets, they cause similar
1 injuries to the bones such as the skull. So if you reconstruct the whole
2 situation, then you can see that there are regular circular holes with a
3 broader areas, broader channels, on the internal wall of the flat bone
4 which is what the bones of the skull are. So we are able to determine
5 localisation with great precision and this is done through
6 reconstruction, which they did in this particular case, and this was done
7 very pedantically but not described in the same way because the number of
8 injuries are observed, but here, in this case, no fragments of gunshot
9 were found in the skull, although the observation and conclusion made is
10 that the injuries were caused by buck-shot.
11 Q. Let's move on to X 0046119, the next case. That's on page 61,
12 104 -- body number 155. Not 155. 55. You also observed that this could
13 be an injury caused during combat. Can you explain why? Can you explain
14 that to us?
15 A. The injuries are in the head area, they are divided into the head
16 area, the trunk or thorax and the limbs or extremities, the left -- or
17 rather right arm and right leg. X-rays find fragments in the left knee,
18 in the pelvis and left foot, and like in the previous cases, the
19 possibility exists that these injuries were caused by firing from a
20 distance and that these parts of the body were hit.
21 Q. I can't find the next case, although it's similar but let's go on
22 to body number 57, 616 -- 6156.
23 A. In this case, it was concluded that the whole body was
24 skeletised, or practically the whole body, and at the joint -- there was
25 a lot of soft tissue in certain parts of the body and the joints were
1 separated. It doesn't say which areas soft tissue remains. This
2 indicates that certain parts of the body had decayed more than others and
3 that the lack of soft tissue means that external factors, in this case
4 animals, had affected the body. There are fragments of the bullet casing
5 in the chest and head, left elbow and in the region of the leg.
6 Now, the injuries to the trunk or chest were found in the left
7 third rib in the mid-clavicular line and a deformed sharp-pointed bullet
8 jacket in soft tissues attached to the trunk. That's what the
9 description says. The limbs, probable gunshot injury to the left
10 forearm, fragmenting the upper thirds of the radius and ulna and with
11 bullet metal fragments found adjacent, which means that this particular
12 fragmentation is just an observation that was made, and I can accept that
13 because if it was found in the soft tissue, that that's -- that a
14 projectile caused the bone fragmentation. And now this speaks of
15 injuries to the trunk, without observation -- observing the fragmentation
16 of the arms.
17 So this description is partially correct but once again indicates
18 the possibility of the injury being caused from a distance, especially
19 where we come to the trunk where the projectile was lodged in the region
20 of the third rib.
21 Q. We can now move on to the next body, which is body 58. 6153 is
22 the number.
23 Can you explain this, the grounds for your conclusions that -- of
24 the possibility that the injury was sustained in combat?
25 A. Well, in any case, we have the jacket or a small fragment in the
1 left part of the chest, a small fragment in the area of the left leg, and
2 a small fracture on the lower part of the leg which can indicate the
3 distance, or that the projectile lost its force or velocity because it
4 passed through an obstacle prior to hitting the body, and then it is
5 noted here, something which I don't actually understand, that the skull
6 is intact while the pelvis is much better preserved. I don't know what
7 that exactly means. I don't know if it's a mistake in the translation or
8 something but that's what it states.
9 In any case, my answer would be in relation to this question that
10 you put, that a fragment of the projectile remained in the tissue.
11 Q. We are going to move immediately to body 62. 61 is a similar
12 description but it's not in the system so we will move to 62. Fragment
13 bullets or shrapnel is mentioned here, so I would like you to comment on
14 that and of course comment on the conclusion that the injuries were
15 caused from a distance.
16 A. What we have here are the remains of a practically bare skeleton
17 with saponified tissues. It means that these several cases were in
18 similar conditions when these putrefactory changes occurred. There were
19 some metal fragments of bullets in the chest area. That's what it says,
20 and that there was a bullet in the skull. However --
21 THE INTERPRETER: This was too fast for the interpreter.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: The interpreter is encountering difficulties,
23 Mr. Dunjic. If you could slowly repeat what you have just said, please?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise to the Trial Chamber
25 and to the interpreter. I began to reed the text and I don't believe
1 that I don't need to bother you with that but I'm just going to give you
2 a direct answer.
3 We have multiple metal fragments in the trunk. Description of
4 the main injuries refers to a projectile fractures and damage in the
5 skull area.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. And did that lead you to the conclusion that is given here in the
9 A. Yes. This led to the conclusion that the injury was inflicted
10 during combat possibly and that it was inflicted during combat and that
11 projectile remained in the body, but the found metal fragments, as
12 described in the chest were not noted anywhere except in the radiographic
13 part. Actually this is not recorded in the autopsy report, the content
14 found in the body indicating distance and the possibility that the
15 shrapnel fragmented even more due to the action of some explosive device.
16 Q. Can we move to the next report, please? This is body 63. In
17 your report it's 6227.
18 Can you tell us what led you to conclude that the injury was
19 sustained in combat?
20 A. We have it here that in the radiographical findings two pellets
21 were found at the right foot and around the right knee and small metal
22 fragments near the right femur or in the soft tissue remains of the right
23 thigh. It means that the projectile remained in the body. It indicates
24 the type of weapon, and the injuries that were described in the skull
25 probably indicate that it is quite likely that the irregular opening at
1 the back of the skull is probably an entrance hole caused by a bullet. A
2 specific hole of exit cannot be recognised. So based on that analysis I
3 made my own comment.
4 Q. Can we move to body marked 64? This is 6241 in our documents.
5 A. In this case, we have a completely bare skeleton, and the skull
6 was shattered and there was an oval hole in the mid-region and a large
7 part of the parietal region was missing and there were also injuries to
8 the pelvis.
9 Q. Can we look at 5910 now, please? This is actually body number
10 42. In your findings, it is on page 55.
11 A. This case, number 42, also indicates that the skeletal remains
12 were saponified and the tissues were saponified. The body was better
13 preserved in the pelvic region where there is some disintegrating muscle
14 tissue left. There are multiple small perforations on the shirt from
15 undefined buck-shot. The fluoroscopy indicates that there was a fragment
16 close to the right and the left forearm, a small fragment and pellet
17 close to the skull, a pellet in the trunk area, two smaller fragments in
18 the pelvic area, the left thigh -- and the left thigh close to the pelvis
19 and a deformed bullet in the body.
20 As for the injuries, there is a fracture of the 7th rib, where
21 there is a clear bullet hole to be seen. And as for the limbs, there is
22 a fracture with multiple bone splinters in the lower third of the left
23 humerus, above the elbow, close to the elbow, and there is nothing more
24 of a detailed description there. These injuries are obviously buck-shot
25 injuries, with a broad dispersion. When I say "broad dispersion," this
1 is a significant fact for us indicating that when we establish the range
2 of fire with buck-shot wounds on the basis of the pellet dispersion, so
3 the pellet dispersion by their direction and the way they are shaped at
4 the ultimate point, because it is a reverse cone shape, the top of the
5 cone is the barrel mouth and then the pellets disperse in the shape of
6 the bottom of the cone, and that can affect a larger area.
7 So on the basis of that pattern, you can calculate the distance
8 between the rifle barrel and the target. Sometimes you can have more
9 pellets deep in the wound and less on the periphery.
10 Q. We are going to move now to body 67, which is on page 68 of your
11 findings, and that is 6298 in our documents.
12 A. This is case 67.
13 Q. Yes, case 67. I would like you to tell us the basis for your
14 conclusion that the injury was sustained during combat.
15 A. Well, look, there is a skull damage here.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
17 MR. MITCHELL: Objection, Your Honour, that's a misstatement of
18 Professor Dunjic's report. He says it's a possible injury in armed
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, yes.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [In English] I told it it is possible injury.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move. Anyway, it's clear enough now. So
23 let's move ahead.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC:
25 Q. Possible injury were in confrontation.
1 A. Yes, yes, the injury is possible in that way, that's what it
3 Q. [Interpretation] All right. Well, it's a small misunderstanding.
4 Can you please tell us what your conclusion is based on that this is a
5 possible injury sustained in conflict?
6 A. Besides the fact that there are two metal fragments, a large
7 skull fracture could have been caused by a fragment or small fragments of
8 metal projectiles which had lost their penetration force and that at the
9 same time they could not -- they were stopped by the body, so again you
10 have the possible distance and extensive injuries. I explained yesterday
11 how it was possible to cause a minor injury at a small velocity with a
12 small projectile and that after the body decomposes and is found, it
13 looks like major damage to the skull or a large fracture because of the
14 state of the body.
15 Q. Thank you. We are now going to move to body 71, and that is on
16 6334 in our documents.
17 A. There are remains of a practically bare body. The skull was
18 shattered. There is a metal fragment in the lower jaw.
19 Q. Can you please tell us what led you to the conclusion in this
20 case that this was possibly a combat injury?
21 A. This is a head injury by a projectile, which was stopped in the
22 mandible, the lower jaw, meaning that this can indirectly indicate
23 distance and as well an injury that we encounter in armed conflict.
24 Q. Mr. Dunjic, now we are going to move to other autopsy reports.
25 They are no longer possibly combat-caused -- refer to possible
1 combat-caused injuries. We are now going to look at body 73. Our number
2 is 6367.
3 This is on page 70 of your findings in the B/C/S version.
4 Can we please look at the cause of death? It's noted here that
5 the cause of death is unknown. Can you please tell us if this
6 description and the conclusions from the autopsy could lead to this
8 A. What is said in the case of 73, which is from Nova Kasaba number
9 8, confirms that the conclusion, where it says the cause of death has
10 been correctly derived in terms of what was noted in the report, and
11 there is no description of the injuries in the report. It just states no
12 fractures, no skull perforations, no neck injuries, and only on the trunk
13 it is noted that one rib was fractured, which means that this conclusion
14 had to be what it is. There were no obvious injuries. They were not
15 noted in the soft tissue, and I underline that again we have a body that
16 was in the stages of saponification and, as I said yesterday,
17 saponification is a process that indicates that the body was in a humid
19 What is missing here, other than the description, they said that
20 the head was intact, is that the fist or hand was missing and then it
21 would have been proper to describe the putrefaction changes in more
22 detail and to describe more in detail if there were any soft tissue
23 damages or damage in the part of the body where the hand was missing or
24 if there was any damage in the area of the rib fracture. In either case.
25 So when we are talking about the hand, we would need to see the
1 edges of the tissue because then we could determine whether this was
2 caused by animals or some other type of trauma, just as we can see in
3 saponified flesh, if there is an injury or if there are discolourations
4 in the soft tissue which could then indicate that the injuries were
5 inflicted post-mortem. The way it is written here, the conclusion about
6 the cause of death is quite accurate in relation to the report of that --
7 about that particular body.
8 Q. Let us move on to the last autopsy report from this group. It is
9 body 74. It follows in your report. In our document it is 6382.
10 A. A bullet core and jacket fragments found in the right upper arm.
11 As for the main injuries, we have comminuted fracture of right temporal
12 bone with pieces pushed inwards. Then pelvis fracture of right pubic
13 symphysis. There is no left pubic symphysis as probably meant was the
14 right pelvic bone. It is a wrong description. Then we have a gunshot
15 injury to the left upper arm, fragmenting the middle third of the
17 However, the conclusion based on the findings is that it was
18 impossible to prove what the cause of death was. They stated what the
19 injuries are. However, they did not say whether they were pre or
20 post-mortem. And there is a gunshot injury mentioned to the left upper
21 arm and based on that the pathologist was unable to conclude what the
22 cause of death was.
23 My conclusion is that the cause of death is correctly described
24 compared to the findings, although the findings in a segment are
25 imprecise and insufficient.
1 Q. Can you explain your comment provided at page 71, which has to do
2 with the entire location of Nova Kasaba?
3 A. Having studied the entire location of Nova Kasaba 1, 2 and 3, and
4 the single case of Nova Kasaba 4, as well as 6, 7 and 8, I analysed this
5 individually, I underlined the correct portions.
6 Q. Just a moment. [In English] 621, English page 65. Sorry, it is
7 not P621 but it is number of page 65 of his report in English. And
8 number of his report is 1D1070.
9 A. May I continue?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please go ahead.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Looking at the entire location of
12 Nova Kasaba 1, 2, 3, the single case of Nova Kasaba 4, and the remaining
13 locations, 6, 7 and 8, there are differences in the forensic approach of
14 those who did the autopsies and provided descriptions, as I've already
15 stated. In the individual analyses. What is a prevailing characteristic
16 is that there is no consistency between the conclusions and Mr. Haglund's
17 comment. We saw in the individual cases what the inconsistency is
18 between the conclusion and the trauma reports, as well as the
19 relationship between the cause of death and type of injuries.
20 I have to state here that -- that the conclusions concerning the
21 manner of death were arbitrary.
22 May I go on?
23 The conclusions about the cause of death were arbitrary. Here,
24 and in the introductory part I explained that the cause of death could
25 have -- and the manner of death could vary in terms of types when
1 discussing violent deaths and non-violent deaths. In all the cases here,
2 it was mentioned that they met a violent death. The injury itself, if
3 described properly, can be acceptable, but to claim that the death was a
4 violent one, I need to provide precise parameters that point in that
5 direction. In the absence of that, I cannot make any conclusions on the
6 cause and manner of death unless I am required to state my position once
7 I have seen all the facts. It is frequently done in individual analysis
8 when one deals with several aspects of suspicion.
9 Therefore, I stated that the conclusions were arbitrary
10 concerning the cause and manner of death. In particular, in the cases
11 where we have multiple injuries by shrapnel, et cetera. The description
12 of injuries in the case of Nova Kasaba 1, 2 and 3 is disastrous. It is
13 somewhat more precise with the remaining locations, these being 6, 7 and
14 8. The established number of cases is correct. The methodology of
15 exhumation and record keeping is fairly accurate. As for the documenting
16 the autopsies, this was carried out properly and according to the
18 Another thing one has to say about the three locations has to do
19 with the time of death. Based on the given descriptions of putrefaction
20 and changes caused by putrefaction, I provided my comments concerning
21 external and internal examinations and based on all that it is not
22 possible to establish the exact time of death.
23 Certain explanations provided by Mr. Haglund are more or less
24 acceptable, but they have to tally with the other data arrived at once
25 DNA identification is complete and once we have personal identification.
1 We need to compare all the information we have with the date of
2 disappearance, the identity needs to be confirmed, and then all that
3 needs to be cross-referenced with the data contained in the autopsy
4 reports, the putrefaction changes, anthropological characteristics. It
5 is only then that we can arrive at a precise time of death. We cannot do
6 that given the descriptions in the autopsy reports alone. Based on that,
7 it is impossible to establish a time of death, in particular, since we
8 had different degrees of putrefaction in different cases.
9 As regards the cause of death, I've already commented that in the
10 introductory part, I explained what cause of death is, and irrespective
11 of an injury to a head or thorax or a leg, the skull trauma in itself is
12 but a mere fact. However, because of the skull trauma, the cause of
13 death can only be ascertained after it was ascertained that the skull
14 injury was -- occurred in life. Pre-mortem, that is.
15 As regards the mechanism of injury, it is difficult to establish
16 it, even when we have evidently good descriptions, primarily because of
17 the putrefaction we encounter and because we cannot establish the entire
18 length of trajectory. When talking about the issue of whether the
19 person -- a person was killed from afar or point blank, it also has to do
20 with ballistics, forensic analysis of weapons, traces found on the body,
21 direction of firing, as well as based on the noted injuries.
22 Q. In this part of your report, inter alia you mentioned the
23 international classification of ... Could you please explain in detail
24 what sort of classification it is? It is Exhibit 1073. It is a Defence
1 I think we only have it in English. Could you please tell us
2 what it is?
3 A. According to the international classification of diseases and
4 injuries, there is also a classification in chapter 20. There is a
5 classification of injuries concerning armed conflict. Anyway, they are
6 specified quite precisely. In this forensic description of injuries, one
7 should ascribe every particular injury the exact code from this
8 classification. It is up to the Court to determine the cause of death.
9 The only thing we can do as forensic expert is to classify the injuries
10 precisely according to the standard. We are there to determine whether
11 the injuries we encounter are, for example the injuries contained here
12 under Y35.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Y36.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They begin with Y36 and the
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. These are the type of injuries in armed conflict?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. That is Y36 to Y36.9.
20 A. Yes. For example, Y36.2, we have war operations and types of
21 injuries. This continues in Y36.3 and .4. It would have been far better
22 to have used this international classification of injuries.
23 Q. While on the topic of the international classification of
24 injuries, can you tell us who drafted it, who created that
1 A. Well, it's an international standard, accepted by all countries,
2 all physicians irrespective of whether they work with living patients or
3 whether they are pathologists or forensic experts like myself, we are all
4 obliged to abide by the classification in terms of types of injuries,
5 cause of death and the morbidity. The classification exists as to have
6 the same criteria and that anyone can monitor given types of injuries and
7 causes of death across the board, in all -- on all continents. This was
8 drafted so that we could monitor statistically the occurrence of
9 different types of injuries and diseases.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Mitchell?
11 MR. MITCHELL: Your Honour, I don't think that actually answered
12 the question, which was who drafted it.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think you're right.
14 Mr. Zivanovic, please, if you could bring the -- go ahead.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Professor, do you know precisely what the name of the
17 organisation is that drafted this?
18 A. I truly don't.
19 Q. Do you know -- excuse me, let me finish. Do you know for how
20 long these rules have been in existence? For example, in your domain?
21 Had they existed before you started working or after that? Is that
22 something you encountered when you began your career?
23 A. When I started working -- well, I don't know what edition or what
24 revision there was at the time, but it existed already. I believe I
25 began with the 7th or 8th. I believe this is the 10th. There is an
1 entire book in existence with the explanations on how to fill in the data
2 required. I really don't know who published it. All doctors got the
3 same book. And we need to use it to assign codes so as to have level
4 criteria when making diagnoses.
5 Q. I can tell you that we downloaded this from the web site of the
6 World Health Organisation, as indicated on our 65 ter list or rather the
7 list we forwarded.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [In English] Your Honours, if we can stop here.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: You mean temporarily?
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Temporarily, yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I was quite sure of that, Mr. Zivanovic. We will
12 have a 25-minute break now. Thank you.
13 --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic. I heard you're going to try
16 and finish in the next 30 minutes.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I'll do my best.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay, thank you.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, tell me, please, or rather let's move
21 on to the Pilica locality, which is incorporated in your report, and in
22 the English version it is from page 66 to 92. And in the B/C/S, from 72
23 to 93. It is Defence Exhibit 10701. Or, rather, 10701 D.
24 Could you tell me, please, whether in this locality, of the
25 autopsy reports that you received from this locality, whether you studied
1 all the findings, all the reports, or not?
2 A. No. No, I didn't study all the autopsy reports. I looked at 52
4 Q. Can you briefly tell us which cases you looked at and which you
6 A. I did not study cases where the conclusion made was that
7 ligatures existed, and that for the simple reason that I considered, and
8 that's what I wrote in my report, that persons with ligatures can be
9 considered from the forensic aspect with documented injuries as having
10 been executed in one way or another. And that is why I took the cases
11 where this was not concluded. And the reason why I selected the cases I
12 looked at is the same as the ones before. I looked at the forensic
13 aspects, the ways in which the injuries were observed, dealt with and
14 verified, and so for that reason, I analysed those cases in greater
15 detail, in order to establish whether there are any differences,
16 similarities and so on and so forth.
17 As you were able to note in what I said so far, I was very
18 precise in analysing the individual cases to show where the forensic
19 report was -- autopsy report was done forensically correctly, where the
20 description was forensically correct, and where any other pathologist of
21 my type would be able to conclude what type of injury was sustained.
22 Now, at Pilica which was a primary grave site, as I say I
23 selected those cases and looked at them, and generally speaking, for all
24 of them, there is a common denominator or common conclusion, if I can put
25 it that way, and that is that the pathologists working on these cases and
1 in describing the traumas sustained, in fact just set a diagnosis of the
2 injuries, just like in Nova Kasaba 1, 2 and 3, so when the injuries
3 are -- when it is injuries caused by projectiles, and every forensic
4 expert would not be able, from those descriptions, to test and ascertain
5 whether they really were injuries sustained by projectiles. So that is
6 my overall general conclusion.
7 They deal with skull fractures, for example, as well, and
8 describe them, without more specific diagnostics and descriptions.
9 A separate case that I'd like to set aside here is the
10 description or rather under inconsistencies of the conclusion made based
11 on those descriptions is the case number 38, Pilica 38.
12 It is on page 78 of my report, 01493296, the ERN number.
13 [In English] It's page 147.
14 A. Here all, all I can do is read it out once again so that we can
15 all hear. The head is missing, the body is incomplete, but the base of
16 the skull is present, putrefaction and saponification. And in the
17 description of the injury, it says, fracture of the skull and fracture of
18 the right part of the pelvis, and the cause is inflicted by firearms.
19 So you can't test the cause of death through the description
20 provided. So this is the inconsistency that I mentioned earlier on.
21 Furthermore, in the entire analysis of this particular case, and
22 this primary grave site, which I conducted, I quoted, at the end of the
23 individual analyses, the report of Mr. William Haglund, and I'd like to
24 dwell on just two points in that report.
25 Q. It's P642, 624, sorry.
1 A. In his report, he states the following: "The distribution number
2 and angle of hits as well as the other characteristics of the wounds
3 indicate that it could be a burst of gunfire that caused the injuries.
4 There is additional injuries from bullets to the heads of a number of
5 victims indicate that fire was opened from the absolute vicinity or point
7 From this quotation it we can conclude that there was a burst of
8 gunfire and that there were -- that there was additional wounding. From
9 the forensic aspects I cannot -- I'm not able to confirm that.
10 A burst of gunfire implies the firing of a large number of
11 projectiles into a body and this observation is then checked out and
12 verified through an autopsy.
13 What Professor Lawrence
14 quoting this later on, well, he said very precisely the concentration of
15 injuries and wounds on a -- one body can indicate that the injuries were
16 caused by bursts of gunfire so a forensic expert knows what a burst of
17 gunfire means and how it can inflict injuries. On the other hand, if you
18 have a burst of gunfire, continuous shooting, this implies that the
19 injuries and the projectiles that were found are identical or similar,
20 and this brings us to one thing here. We have one conclusion made by
21 anthropologists, I'd like to stress that, whereas the autopsy finding is
22 unable to verify that.
23 The second point is this, and I'd like to underline that from the
24 forensic aspect, and it is -- he states that very decisively and
25 resolutely, and this cannot be accepted from a forensic aspects, and
1 that's his observation that additional wounds from bullets to the head in
2 many victims indicate that a fire was opened either from a close range or
3 point blank. This observation is incorrect in two ways. The first is
4 that it was up close or point blank, injuries sustained point blank or
5 from absolute -- an absolutely close vicinity, are not described and it
6 implies that traces should be found, that is to say gunpowder particles,
7 whereas the observation that these -- this was a case of additional
8 wounding by bullets implies that the anthropologist, the forensic expert,
9 had established the order in which the injuries were sustained, which is
10 absolutely impossible on decayed, skeletised, decomposed bodies, so as a
11 forensic expert myself, forensic pathologist, I'm not able to determine
12 the order of injuries sustained, especially if there were a number of
13 injuries. I cannot establish their order on the body. I must have
14 precise parameters for me to be able to tell the Court that one injury
15 was first as opposed to the others and which was the last injury and all
16 the injuries in between.
17 That means that the last injury in the series can have the
18 character of being an executive fatal injury, it could be a slit to the
19 neck or it could be firing at point-blank range, but you can't prove
20 that, and you especially cannot prove it with material like this, that is
21 to say autopsy reports and descriptions of the kind that I looked at
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Zivanovic, could you check whether we are
24 following the correct document?
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [In English] Sorry. Yes, we didn't say the page
1 of this document, but the witness explained the part of his report. It
2 is 1D1070. It is English page 91 of his report, 91, as far as I know.
3 It is -- just a moment. It is from page 89 to page 92.
4 JUDGE KWON: In B/C/S.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, in English, we have from page -- it is almost
6 the same, from page 89, I believe, to page 92.
7 JUDGE KWON: Let's proceed.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Professor, in your report here, I found three cases in which the
10 cause of death was unknown. Would you look at those reports? It's now
11 document 624, Prosecution document 624, and the page is 35, 36 and 37.
12 Or rather 38. And refers to corpse number 9. In your report, it is on
13 page -- your page 74.
14 A. Yes, I can see that. This is an incomplete body with the head,
15 trunk and upper extremities and spine missing, and decay and
16 saponification had set in, and the skeleton was partially bare. The
17 injuries weren't identified on the other parts so the cause of death was
18 not established, so that can be accepted.
19 Q. Now let us take a look at page 131 to 133 of that same document.
20 And it relates to body 33, and it's on your page 78. Or 77.
21 A. This particular case, we had the entire body with putrefaction,
22 saponification and decay taking place and a partially bare skeleton,
23 without any precise description of the putrefaction that had occurred.
24 Of the injuries, it is noted that the left pubic bone was shattered when
25 a projectile, high-velocity projectile hit the body. I'm not going to
1 comment on that injury because that's the diagnosis there but the cause
2 of death is undetermined, which would be in keeping with the findings as
3 they have been set out.
4 Q. And the last case from that series is page 279 to 281. It is
5 body number 74, and on page 84 of your report is where we can find it.
6 A. This is a case where the body was incomplete, no missing --
7 missing skull, left clavicle, bilateral upper and lower extremities,
8 pelvic bone, left scapula, all cervical and lumbar vertebrae and 11
9 thoracic vertebrae. Putrefaction and saponification had occurred and
10 cause of death undetermined and that is in keeping with the findings.
11 Q. Professor, we are now going to take a look at bodies 83 and 84
12 from your report. They are not on e-court, although the fourth volume of
13 this report by Dr. Haglund, they are there but I don't know whether we
14 have them, we don't seem to have them in e-court, but we do have it on a
15 CD, so that's what we are going to show. Page 3462 and body 83. It
16 starts on page 85 and continues on page 86.
17 Let's take a look at page 33 now of the English version. [In
18 English] "Recovered evidence bullet from right side of jacket."
19 [Interpretation] Can you explain to us what this means?
20 A. The bullet on the right-hand side of the jacket.
21 Q. Tell me now, what -- what does it mean, bullet from right side of
22 jacket? What does that signify? How do you interpret that? Bullet from
23 right side of jacket.
24 A. All I can say is -- interpret it the way it's written, meaning
25 that it's the entire bullet, the jacket and the projectile, in the pocket
1 of the jacket or in some part of the jacket. Nothing more than that.
2 Q. Can we now look at the next body? This is body 84. It's on the
3 following page, and I would like us also to look at page 37.
4 A. Again, we have the presence of projectiles and it says bullet in
5 the left side of pocket of trousers. It's the same thing. The bullet is
6 in the trousers, in the clothing.
7 Q. In the pocket of the clothing?
8 A. In the left side pocket of the trousers, which means that the
9 entire bullet, which has not been fired, was in the pocket of the
10 trousers. Usually when you describe the bullet you would say a
11 projectile, a jacket or the projectile, so here the way it's described
12 would indicate that it was a complete bullet.
13 Q. All right, Professor. Thank you very much.
14 I'm now going to ask you to move to the Zeleni Jadar locality,
15 Zeleni Jadar 05. That is also in your report, 1D1070, English pages 93
16 to 104, B/C/S pages are from page 94 to 104.
17 Generally, can you tell us anything that has to do with -- can
18 you please tell us generally about Zeleni Jadar 5? Your remarks
19 generally, what you have to say about that locality?
20 A. Well, I have to say first, just like I said yesterday, Zeleni
21 Jadar 5 is a secondary grave. I did not have enough time in order to
22 completely process all the cases, so I just arbitrarily picked 20 cases
23 which I analysed here in order to be able to get a forensic impression
24 about the process and methodology of work generally, since this is a
25 secondary grave, that is linked with Glogova 2. 150 corpses in total
1 were found and I analysed 20 of the autopsies out of that number.
2 According to the report, one body was found at this location with
3 ligatures. No bodies were found with blindfolds.
4 This location, and the remains found there that were examined,
5 there were cases where shell fragments and shrapnel was found in the
6 bodies. What is important for a forensics man is that there was a kind
7 of discontinuity in the development of the putrefaction on these bodies,
8 or, rather, there are bodies that are in advanced stages of
9 decomposition, there are practically skeletonised and there are some
10 corpses that have preserved soft tissues with only a degree of
12 Again, I would like to note that the degree of putrefaction was
13 not described in detail in the autopsy reports, but if you find two
14 groups of corpses with such evidently different stages of preservation,
15 then you have to put this together with the fact or realistic assumption
16 that what is happening here is that we have two groups of bodies,
17 skeletonised bodies, which probably reached that phase earlier, before
18 they were buried in this particular grave, or that the condition in the
19 grave were drastically different.
20 Since this is a secondary grave, we have to take this into
21 account, that the skeletonised bodies, without soft tissues, could have
22 been dead earlier and exposed to conditions that speed up the process of
23 putrefaction, and then later, when this grave was formed as such were in
24 the grave itself as such, because if there are decomposing bodies in the
25 grave already, then we can draw the conclusion that the Zeleni Jadar 5
1 graveyard already contained some bodies which went through the usual
2 process of decomposition. This is something that I can say about that.
3 Another thing that I can note, which was also noted by Professor
4 Lawrence or Dr. Lawrence, is that some bones show marks of burning or
5 scorch marks in the sacks and also there is charring of the clothing
6 which would indicate that the bodies that were charred and where the
7 bones were also -- seemed to be charred were exposed to a high
8 temperature that can be seen or that is created during an explosion of
9 explosive devices such as shells and other weapons, hand grenades, which
10 is then consistent with the finding that grenade and shrapnel materials
11 were found to a large degree at this location.
12 Q. For purposes of illustration, I would like us to look at a couple
13 of reports from this location. We would now look at 33428 on -- in your
14 report, it's on page 96.
15 A. Yes. This is case 189 if I'm not mistaken. And here we have the
16 presence of shrapnel and grenade so the injuries could have possibly been
17 caused by shells and shrapnel, possible shells, the injuries described,
18 even though they are not described in detail, are such that they could
19 have been caused by such objects. Thus, in spite of the brief
20 description, we could come to the conclusion that those are injuries of
21 that nature. In other cases, I described that in such situation it's
22 possible to create the conditions for the development of a high
24 Q. Can we look at 3451 now, please? In your comment you said here,
25 and this is on page 97, that it is possible that this injury was caused
1 during combat. Generally, can you tell us what you base your conclusion
2 on about it being a possible combat-inflicted injury?
3 A. Just in previous cases, I said that shrapnel discovered in the
4 area of the left hip, where there is a large surface that can hold back
5 or stop shrapnel or metal fragments would indicate the distance, and thus
6 can be then connected with actions resulting from combat because shrapnel
7 can be a large object that is created when larger lethal means are fired.
8 Q. Can we look at your report on the previous page, page 96 of your
9 report? At the bottom of the page --
10 A. Yes, yes, yes, main injuries.
11 Q. [In English] That's trauma related to death in English version,
12 after second
13 concluded to be post-mortem injuries." [Interpretation] I would now like
14 to ask you to explain to me how you understand this sentence, in
15 following this discussion you could come to the conclusion that these
16 were post-mortem injuries. I did not actually point this out in some
17 other autopsy reports.
18 A. Well, look, this remark that is written here also causes dilemmas
19 for me and it makes me begin to think, and I can possibly provide a very
20 broad answer here. What I mean to say is this: When you determine main
21 injuries, and this is how they are noted in the way that they are noted,
22 then this sentence can say that what occurred was a conversation among a
23 number of persons, the pathologist, the anthropologist and so on, and
24 that the conclusion was reached that these are post-mortem injuries.
25 However, the cause of death indicating injuries caused by
1 shrapnel and gunshot wounds would then not be consistent with such a
2 conclusion because then that cannot be the cause of death. It would mean
3 that the injuries were -- occurred after death.
4 Q. Professor, thank you very much.
5 Now I would like to move to the last grave that you analysed.
6 It's Ravnice 2. So also can you please tell us if you analysed all the
7 autopsy reports of the bodies found in this grave or not?
8 A. In this case as well, I had to, because of the time
9 considerations, analyse just a number of cases. In this case, that is 20
10 cases. But I took this locality into account in my analysis for specific
11 reasons. These bodies were actually found on the surface, so throughout
12 the whole time until they were discovered and until the autopsy was
13 carried out, the bodies were on the surface, which would then indicate a
14 different way of putrefaction and the changes that occurred.
15 Q. I just did not yet mention the page of your report that this can
16 be found in. This is 1D1070 of your report -- actually, that's your
17 report. And the page in the B/C/S version is 105 to 121, and in the
18 English version it's 105 to 122.
19 A. The general remark that can apply in this particular case is the
20 following: That the description of the trauma is insufficient and
21 inadequate and that the cause of death was established on the basis of
22 such a description. This would be a general remark.
23 The second thing that can be said about this particular case is
24 that because of this inconsistency, the description of the putrefactory
25 changes, in most cases this is skeletisation or remains without any soft
1 tissue, so in the majority of cases that I quoted we are talking about
2 diagnoses given as descriptions of the trauma, so it is not possible to
3 check if these are actually injuries that occurred.
4 The third thing that needs to be said is the remark that there
5 was shell material that was found there, shell fragments, in certain
6 cases, although there is also a very accurate description of wounds or
7 injuries, which would then correspond to the conclusion that these were
8 actually, in fact, gunshot wounds.
9 Q. I would like us now to look at a part of the report of 1D1203.
10 A. And that is the case?
11 Q. That is the first case on page 105. This is body number 287. I
12 apologise, I didn't mention that.
13 A. Yes. This is a completely skeletonised body. It was exposed for
14 a long time to putrefaction, which is -- which corresponds to the place
15 where the body was found. Fluorographically tiny fragments of metal were
16 found in the remains, these are head and neck injuries here, with only
17 two pieces remaining. And there are no obvious bullet defects on the
18 frontal and left parietal sections of the skull. There are fractures of
19 the single rib present at the angle and then further wounds are
20 described. The cause of death is unascertained. It was not possible to
21 ascertain the cause of death. So this is an accurate conclusion in terms
22 of the elements on which it was based.
23 Q. Can you please now look at Exhibit 1214? 1D1214. This is body
24 number 319, on page 106 of your report. It's at the bottom of that page.
25 It is said here that diagnosis -- cut and dried diagnoses were given?
1 A. Yes, incomplete description of injuries and a superficial report
2 on gunshot injuries, with the conclusion that there was -- the injuries
3 were sustained by firearms, so cut and dry diagnoses are provided without
4 describing them first.
5 Q. Let's have a look at another autopsy report, 1207. It is page
6 109, body 92.
7 A. We have skeletal remains without any tissue left, which tallies
8 with the place and time of finding of the body. Radiographically
9 speaking two bullets were found as well as shell material with an
10 addition of multiple metallic fragments in the rest of the body.
11 Description of injuries, as such, points to the injuries which would
12 correspond with the found shell material, although the cause of death
13 only mentions gunshot injury of the chest.
14 Q. [In English] Next page, radiography report. Sorry.
15 A. That's the first page of the summary portion of the report.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Yes. It looks like it's on the first page. I
18 A. Radiography, please. We can see it.
19 Q. Yes, the last paragraph of the summary, the last sentence. That
20 is what you were referring to?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Your conclusion was?
23 A. My conclusion was that the injuries as provided, with an
24 incomplete description, could have been caused by shell material and in
25 the way described. However, in order to verify any gunshot wounds in the
1 sense of a projectile being existent, it is simply not there in the
2 autopsy report.
3 Q. Professor Dunjic, concerning the conclusion you made, I believe
4 you've clarified that sufficiently. Therefore, I won't ask you about
5 that. But I wanted to ask you the following or perhaps a colleague of
6 mine will ask you about it. I would like to go to one part of your
7 comment, at page 126 of your report. It is 128 in the English.
8 You mention a report from San Antonio, which contains certain
9 conclusions and recommendations. It was drafted by a professional body
10 that deals with forensic medicine and it took place between the 14th and
11 the 19th of November, although I'm not sure we can see the month in the
12 English translation.
13 First of all, generally speaking, what was your source?
14 A. The report quoted in my report is something I received from a
15 colleague of mine who is also a forensic pathologist who also provided
16 opinions in certain case, Mr. Zoran Stankovic. At the time he was the
17 head of the military medical academy and also testified here in a case.
18 I quoted that report in my report, so as to provide an illustration of
19 the type of work when they began working in the locations concerning
20 Srebrenica. You can see for yourself that these are statements of
21 certain participants, for example Mr. Gallagher, Yvonne Milewski, David
22 DelPino, commenting upon the work of Mr. Haglund, Kirschner and the rest.
23 Q. You talked about numerous omissions, professionally speaking, in
24 the work they performed. The statements of the people you've just
25 mentioned, do they corroborate your assertions? Could such omissions
1 have resulted in the inconsistencies you have been addressing?
2 A. One can conclude that from my entire testimony. The superficial
3 way of describing obviously points to several things, one of them being
4 the experience of the pathologists doing the autopsies, provided that
5 these were indeed forensic pathologists, many of them were young save for
6 the few who managed the task, who were indeed professional pathologists.
7 And this tallies with what I've been presenting here yesterday and today.
8 Q. Let us see the integral part of the report, which is 2D70, page
10 A. Yes, that is the report.
11 Q. I see a complaint in item 12. I don't think we have that in
12 B/C/S. It is only in English. In any case, it reads that she is
13 complaining that she was instructed how to list the cause of death by
14 Dr. Kirschner. Is that method allowed, to instruct someone carrying out
15 an autopsy, even if the instructor is a forensic expert, is it correct to
16 tell another person what should be the listed cause of death?
17 A. Everyone is responsible for their work individually, irrespective
18 of who the head of the team is. Only the person doing the autopsy is the
19 person responsible for what they write, and I will illustrate that with
20 the following. Mrs. Helena Ranta, who worked with my team on the cases
21 from Racak, she did not meddle whatsoever with the work of Ante Pintila
22 [phoen], who was a forensic pathologist. His conclusions can be found in
23 the autopsy report. Therefore, recommendations of that nature to change
24 a finding or a conclusion is impermissible for the person signing the
25 autopsy report. To exert such influence is unprofessional. One can
1 provide advice, explanations by senior to junior colleagues, and
2 professional explanations and proof can be given, but to change something
3 that is already written is unprofessional.
4 Q. In item 13, it says that anthropologist Dorothy Gallagher saw
5 problems in the field and in the lab and that she stated that
6 Dr. Kirschner changed autopsy reports and instructed her what to do while
7 processing them.
8 Is something of that nature allowed, permissible?
9 A. If I may have a moment. First of all, it is impermissible. I am
10 pausing because there is an assertion which I quoted in my report.
11 Q. Perhaps you can tell it in your own words?
12 A. It confirms, I believe it was in a collective report, and I
13 believe it was Mr. Haglund that I quoted, he himself confirms that, that
14 they worked in agreement and under Kirschner's management, or, rather,
15 according to his directives.
16 Q. My question is not whether it is so or not but whether it is
17 permissible. Could you perhaps address it from that point of view? From
18 the point of view of professional work, when doing an autopsy.
19 A. No, absolutely not.
20 Q. Another thing concerning exhumations. In item 13 as well, Ms.
21 Dorothy Gallagher says that Dr. Haglund dictated too much speed in
22 exhumation, and because of that there were shortcomings. Is there a rule
23 in existence when doing exhumations at what rate, speed that should be
24 done, in what way?
25 A. Standards are set according to the circumstances in the field.
1 The pace can have an impact on the evidence, parts of bodies exposed to
2 putrefaction that could be lost in the field. Documentation following
3 from that is also highly suspect -- can also be suspected in terms of its
5 Q. Item 14 has to do with David DelPino, a Chilean anthropologist.
6 He says that operations were halted when Dr. Haglund was away. What sort
7 of an impact could that have had on the exhumations and autopsies, since
8 the work was halted due to an absence of a member of the team?
9 A. It can have an impact if it's an open-air location, if there is
10 no soil covering the bodies, one only enhances decomposition, changing
11 the pathological substrate substance that needs to be recorded. The
12 bodies that are being exhumed and put in body bags used to transport them
13 to a refrigerator, even during that short interval, one greatly enhances
14 the rate of decomposition. In such cases, later on, you may establish
15 skeletonisation which may not have existed at the place and moment of
16 exhumation, and they halted the entire operation while the bodies were on
17 the surface.
18 Q. Another matter concerning item 14 and something David DelPino
19 discusses therein. He says that clothing was discarded at Haglund's
20 command, even though some contained identification. I'm not precisely
21 sure what it means, but tell me this: According to the rules of your
22 profession, is it permissible to discard clothes found during
24 A. No, not a single piece or item of clothing found at a location
25 can be discarded. That is to say, if such clothing is on the body, it
1 goes with the body. If something is found next to the body, say a hat,
2 it can be joined with the body, but if we find pieces of clothing further
3 away or torn, they are still taken and marked separately so that later on
4 we can provide material for additional identification. Say there are
5 trousers. You can't find ten male trousers and then later on suspect
6 that there was a woman among the corpses. If you find clothes,
7 irrespective of where and how it was found, without it you won't have all
8 the indicators and parameters that should and must help you in the
9 process of identification. The DNA analysis carried out is not -- are
10 not the only parameters used to identify the persons found.
11 Q. One of my last questions has to do with this document as well.
12 It's page 12. This is the one.
13 Page 12, and let's look at point 9.
14 Let's look at the title first. It says, "Recommendations,
15 committee recommendations." That is the professional body that looked
16 into all the complaints. So let's focus on point 9 and could you comment
17 on that point, please? It says, "There was too much subjectivity and not
18 enough objectivity when the exhumation and post-mortem examinations were
19 carried out." No, I'm sorry, that doesn't seem to be it. I do
20 apologise. It's page 11. We need page 11. That's right.
21 And it says, "There was mutual agreement on management problems
22 on the part of the supervisors." Now the points are set out and I was
23 quoting from point 9. [In English] "There was too much subjectivity and
24 not enough objectivity in the performance of the exhumation and
25 post-mortem examinations."
1 [Interpretation] Tell me, please, looking through samples, look
2 at these findings at random, do you share that opinion?
3 A. From what I said, it follows it would appear that I'm in
4 agreement with the conclusions made by this professional body. I've just
5 found it. And I have to say that this is linked to what was previously
6 stated about changing conclusions and findings in one way or another, and
7 Haglund in his document for Cerska, the 15th of June 1998 on page 11 of
8 the translation in Serbian precisely noted that point.
9 Q. I think that you incorporated that.
10 A. Yes. It says the autopsy examinations were conducted under the
11 supervision of Robert Kirschner.
12 Q. Could you just give us a page reference, please? I apologise.
13 A. It is on page 122 of my report, where I state my opinions.
14 Q. [In English] 122, I believe.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. [Interpretation] General conclusion on page 122.
17 A. That's the right page.
18 Q. Here it is now. Next page, please, in English.
19 A. Paragraph 3 is the relevant paragraph. I'm going to read it out.
20 "In that report, Mr. Haglund states the following, among other things.
21 Autopsy examinations were carried out under the supervision of Dr. Robert
22 Kirschner, director of the international forensic programme of Physicians
23 for Human Rights, and in brackets, [PHR]. Finalisation of cause and
24 manner of death, as well as editing of final autopsy reports was
25 facilitated by ICTY legal adviser Peter McCloskey, the pathology summary
1 was authored by Page Hudson, MD. So from this we can see that certain
2 corrections were made, adjustments.
3 Q. Thank you, Professor. I have no further questions.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
5 Now, I have first on my list as a co-defendant summoning this
6 witness the Beara Defence team. Mr. Ostojic, do you wish to examine this
8 MR. OSTOJIC: I do, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, please.
10 Examination by Mr. Ostojic:
11 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Dunjic, and as you know my name is John
12 Ostojic and I represent Mr. Ljubisa Beara in this case. I've had the
13 pleasure to meet you but good afternoon to you again. Sir, I'd like to
14 follow up on a couple of questions my learned friend asked on direct.
15 First and foremost, can you tell us, when you said that it was
16 impermissible to do certain things, why would it be impermissible from a
17 forensic pathologist's standpoint to discard for example clothing or
18 items such as identification found on a corpse?
19 A. Well, that's just proof and evidence that that forensic
20 pathologist is working very unprofessionally and superficially and I've
21 already said what finding even one item of clothing or fragment of
22 clothing means with respect to the identification of a corpse, of a
24 Q. Can you share with us under what circumstances, if any, would a
25 reasonably prudent independent forensic pathologist permit or allow a
1 Prosecutor or a Defence attorney for that matter to participate in
2 formulating the cause or manner of death?
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. There is no evidence whatsoever in
4 the record that any Prosecutor took part in the formulating the cause of
5 death. This is this absurd fantasy that they try to spin off on last
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Do you wish to comment on that or do you wish
8 to move to your next question?
9 MR. OSTOJIC: I think it's a misstatement of the facts and I
10 think my learned, friend with the most respect, is inaccurate.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop. If we are going to discuss this I don't want
12 it discussed in the presence of the witness.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: Instead of -- because time is always of the
14 essence, I would like to get back to it but I'd like to turn to an
15 exhibit first with the Court's permission.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's see what you have to say.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: And I'll restate the question perhaps after this
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's see the exhibit.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Can we have 2D70, please?
21 Q. And it's page 11, the one that you were just looking at,
22 Dr. Dunjic, you were asked specifically about paragraph number 9, and
23 what I'd like to ask you about is paragraph number 6. Let me know when
24 you've had that in front of you. And I'm not sure the extent of your
25 English, but I'll try to read it for you here verbatim. Okay. Paragraph
1 6 in this report, it says, "Universal agreement on the alteration of
2 reports and final opinion as to the cause and manner of death without
3 consulting the prosecutor who had performed the post-mortem examination,
4 this should not have been done."
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you capable of understanding this paragraph,
6 Mr. Ostojic?
7 MR. OSTOJIC: I am, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's see what your question is.
9 MR. OSTOJIC:
10 Q. Under what circumstances, if any, would a reasonably prudent
11 independent forensic pathologist allow or permit, if it occurred, for a
12 prosecutor to participate in formulating the cause or manner of death?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, there is no indication whatsoever that
14 any prosecutor in this case ever took part in any form or manner of death
15 or took part in any autopsy or anything like that, and that's -- it's
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Our decision by majority is to proceed with your
19 next question, Mr. Ostojic.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Sir, what effect, if any in your opinion, does it have on the
22 report if someone other than the forensic pathologist was formulating an
23 opinion as to cause or effect of death?
24 A. From what I said yesterday and indeed from what I said today too,
25 it is obvious that in all cases, that the observation exists that the
1 cause of death was linked to the injuries, which were either incompletely
2 described or not described at all as having been caused by firearms, and
3 in the manner of death, that what is mentioned is killing. So if
4 somebody keeps insisting upon the fact that we are dealing with killings,
5 with murder, and if somebody keeps insisting but is inconsistent in their
6 findings with respect to the cause of death, then that's quite clear.
7 So a forensic pathologist cannot allow his findings and his
8 reports, particularly in the conclusions about the cause of death, should
9 be altered in any way, just as we must not allow any arbitrary
10 conclusions as to the cause of death, because forensic pathology is very
11 pragmatic in that area. And Mr. Clark in his report indeed addresses
12 this and Mr. Lawrence here too. They were very resolute in stating that
13 you need proof and evidence of the injuries to be able to establish the
14 cause of death. So unless you establish all this, you can't do that, you
15 can't alter something as you go along and then make your own conclusions.
16 So as a forensic pathologist myself, that would be impermissible. I
17 would not accept anything like that.
18 Q. And, Dr. Dunjic, that's just not your standard, that's actually
19 the universally accepted standards for forensic pathologists, isn't it?
20 A. That -- it should be a universally -- it should be a universally
21 accepted standards but quite obviously people have accepted the
22 guidelines and advice, and that is why at the big conference in San
23 Antonio where the leading pathologists and forensic experts and
24 anthropologists meet to debate and discuss matters, they discuss this
25 too. In our own circles, our own professional circles, not linked to
1 these events in Srebrenica or anything like that, our chambers, chamber
2 of forensic pathologists and so on, we discussed that and my information
3 tells me that they discussed it in England
4 in their professional circles, discussed this too, how these reports
5 should be written, what you should include and so on.
6 Because as a forensic pathologist, in order to provide you, the
7 Court and lawyers a precise and objective findings and report, that is my
8 duty, and then if you put together all the other parts of the puzzle and
9 all the other elements on the basis of witness testimony and so on, you
10 can create your own picture. I can't lead you to a conclusion which is
11 not substantiated by my report. If somebody was killed by a projectile,
12 then that projectile and everything surrounding the event must be
13 described, and I gave you examples of how we worked. I worked on a large
14 number of cases, an enormous number of cases, of bodies, corpses, which
15 had been putrefied, and then you list everything, you say the corpse has
16 been decomposed, that there were such and such injuries. You don't go
17 and write the cause of death straight away. You have to make those
18 conclusions on the basis of objectively observed facts and recorded
19 facts, and not to say what you assume happened, and then ultimately it's
20 up to the Court to weigh all the evidence and make their decisions
22 Q. Okay. And those findings, I think as you stated to us yesterday,
23 are both -- they come from the external and internal findings that a
24 pathologist conducts during autopsy, correct?
25 A. Absolutely correct. You must have the external and internal
1 findings, detailed ones, and this refers not only to trauma but to the
2 entire findings and report in which you can describe and see post-mortem
3 changes on the corpse, their degree and all the other processes that can
4 be observed and described on a corpse.
5 Q. Help us understand this, sir. I know there is obviously a
6 difference between cause of death and then manner of death, as you've
7 described and isolated for us today and yesterday specifically on page
8 62, but when you discuss cause of death and you find that it was "not
9 established," under what circumstances can a reasonably prudent forensic
10 pathologist come to any conclusion as to the manner of death if again,
11 just so you know, the cause of death is "not established"?
12 A. That is a subjective position, then, absolutely subjective,
13 because without -- if you cannot determine the cause of death, and this
14 is confirmed by an autopsy report or the descriptions given, and then
15 that you go ahead and conclude that it was a killing, so that's your own
16 personal attitude, subjective, or suggested, a suggested position.
17 Q. Now, help me understand this. Are there different criteria or
18 words that a forensic pathologist such as yourself and those universally
19 would use if they are uncertain as to what the findings results should
20 be? And for example if I may assist you, do pathologists, forensic
21 pathologists use words such as unascertainable or uncertain or
22 questionable in their field of specialty when it comes to both cause of
23 death and/or manner of death?
24 A. In rare situations, when you have a fresh corpse and when no
25 clear cause of death is found, whereas you have the corpse, the body, as
1 a fact, then the pathologist can write and state that the cause of death
2 was not ascertained and possibly to explain why, to give reasons why,
3 because there is no evidence of trauma, of disease, laboratory findings
4 are such that they cannot confirm whether there was a metabolic
5 disturbance or whatever, that's one type of situation.
6 And another type of situation is this: When you don't have
7 elements which would indicate that the injury was sustained during life.
8 For example on various organs, the brain, the heart, the abdomen, that
9 would be then linked to the cause of death later on. So we write down
10 that the cause of death in such cases cannot be ascertained because there
11 were changes that took place during the life of the person. And all this
12 has to be written down.
13 Now, if I understood you correctly and your question correctly, I
14 said what the origins or cause of death means and how the person was
15 killed and the injuries that were observed, whether they could be linked
16 to violent death or sudden death or suicide, so this notion of killing is
17 a legal concept.
18 Forensically you have to have certain elements present which
19 emanate from an autopsy and autopsy report, which to a greater or lesser
20 degree of probability indicate to the Court that it was one or another
21 type of injury. And when you say that it is a killing, that a killing
22 has taken place, then you need to substantiate that very well with your
23 arguments for the Court to accept that.
24 Q. Well, I was just trying to focus on words such as
25 unascertainable, unquestionable, and uncertain, but what about words --
1 do pathologists, forensic pathologists, such as yourself in their either
2 cause of death or manner of death use words such as inconsistent with,
3 for example, homicide? Or consistent with homicide? Is that in essence
4 what you're saying, that the pathologists should have noted where they
5 felt the factors were supportive of any one or another conclusion? Isn't
6 that the essence of your work?
7 A. In all cases, well, autopsy and an autopsy report, must be very
8 precise and exact. Somebody can have a large number of injuries, for
9 example, and nobody can challenge that, of the head, the trunk, the limbs
10 and so on. This large number of injuries must be substantiated and
11 documents and then linked up to the cause of death.
12 Now, the manner of death, the manner of death, is something that
13 the pathologist -- it is not up to the pathologist to determine, or he
14 must use an international classification that we saw a moment ago on the
15 manner of injury. Now, it's up to the Court, let me state this again, on
16 the basis of all the evidence presented, to determine what ultimately
17 caused the death of the individual.
18 Q. Now, we will talk about those classifications since you brought
19 it up. When we discussed the classifications that you've looked at, are
20 you familiar with, and we have used the word interchangeably
21 unfortunately throughout this trial, words such as ambush, but I think
22 one of the OTP witnesses, Richard Butler, identified that ambush as we've
23 have called it as a legitimate military engagement and I think in using
24 the classifications that you did, did you find that those classifications
25 when talking about operations in a war theatre are actually, as you've so
1 identified, legitimate military combat engagements?
2 A. I cannot answer that question, because when it comes to
3 legitimacy and whether something is legitimate, that must be established
4 by lawyers and courts. All I can talk to you about is injuries, the
5 injuries sustained in one way or another.
6 Q. Help me with this since you have a classification in front of
7 you. Doesn't it use the word "legal" when it does those classifications
8 in war operations?
9 MR. MITCHELL: Objection, leading, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Do you wish to
11 explain further or shall we hear Mr. Ostojic? Do you agree that it is
12 leading, Mr. Ostojic?
13 MR. OSTOJIC: It's really directing him to that specific area but
14 I think we saw it on the ELMO but I could do it obviously without
15 leading, if we could have that exhibit, please, now, pleased on the ELMO.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
17 MR. MITCHELL: Your Honour, this is also going well beyond this
18 witness's expertise as well.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: That is what I actually had in mind when he put the
20 first question, which the witness made clear already that he couldn't
21 answer. But he beat me on time. So now it's my turn. I think you need
22 to move on to your next question. And leave this subject matter aside
23 because this is not his expertise.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: I think if I may, with the highest of respect to
25 Your Honours, this is specifically identified in his opinion and the
1 expert witness has relied specifically on these classifications, he's
2 noted them, the Prosecution has had them, all I want to do is because
3 he's a pathologist and he may believe that he's not rendering an opinion
4 based on any legal issue but it's clear that these classifications given
5 to pathologists universally they do denote specifically that which I
6 asked the witness, utilising that very word, "Legal".
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Now we are unanimous on this, Mr. Ostojic. Let's
9 move to the next subject, please.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Doctor, when we talk about the cause of death and manner of death
12 as two distinct items, I think yesterday in your testimony you said that
13 basically the two go hand in hand and I think it's in -- on page 51, line
14 7 through 12, but I wasn't sure on your answer, and if you could clarify
15 it for me, could you have a cause of death that is known but a manner of
16 death that is undetermined or unknown?
17 A. Yes. There are such cases. For instance, when you have the
18 cause of death, I don't know what example to take.
19 Q. I'll give you one. Let's say there is a gunshot wound to the
20 head and you're not certain from the evidence that you've seen whether it
21 would have been as a result of a homicide, a suicide or justification in
22 self defence, for example, or for that matter, a legitimate military
23 engagement. Under those, circumstances, for example, could you determine
24 as a forensic pathologist what the cause of death was but not know what
25 the manner of death was?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, I'm going to object to that for
2 foundation, manner of death --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey, I think you need to have a
4 consultation between you and Mr. Mitchell as to who is going to continue
5 the role of Prosecutor with this witness. So I suggest we have a break
7 You know what the practice has been. We allow one, unless there
8 are certain circumstances. If you wish to sit near Mr. Mitchell and --
9 but we prefer if it's only one counsel that --
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I understand, Mr. President, and it will be
11 Mr. Mitchell and we can go on.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Then let's have the break now, 25
14 --- Recess taken at 5.44 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 6.14 p.m.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I see that Mr. McCloskey liked my idea or
18 Let's continue, Mr. Ostojic.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I suggest you repeat your question so that we'll
21 hear the objection again.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay.
23 Q. There has been quite a few but I'll repeat the last one before
24 the break and then maybe we'll deal with that. Sir, before the break I
25 asked you to in essence describe the difference between cause and effect
1 and manner of death and I stated on page 56 as follows, because you had
2 stated you didn't have an example to clarify, could you have a cause of
3 death that is known but a manner of death that is undetermined or
4 unknown, let's say there is a gunshot wound to the head and you're not
5 certain from the evidence that you've seen whether it would have been as
6 a result of a homicide, a suicide or justification in self defence, for
7 example, or for that matter a legitimate military engagement, under those
8 circumstances for example could you determine as a forensic pathologist
9 what the cause of death was but not know what the manner of death was?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
11 MR. MITCHELL: Objection, Your Honour, he needs to define the
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Define the term in what sense?
14 MR. MITCHELL: It's a legal term, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: As I understand it, it is basically he's asking the
16 witness to confirm that as a pathologist, as such, he's not interested in
17 the -- in whether it was a justification in self defence or military
18 engagement, et cetera, but then he adds also suicide and homicide. To my
19 knowledge, forensic pathologist will go into that and that's one of the
20 most fundamental tasks that he has to carry in, short of other evidence,
21 he would need to confirm --
22 MR. OSTOJIC: And I think, with all due respect, we can stipulate
23 if the pathologist can't reach a legal confusion then for that matter if
24 that's what my learned friend is saying, I think the pathologist reports
25 that are in evidence should be stricken if that's what he's saying, but I
1 think a forensic pathologist can indeed reach a conclusion based upon
2 reasonableness and specifically those external and internal factors that
3 Dr. Dunjic has testified to in the last two days, but I'd be happy to
4 stipulate to that if they wish.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: If I were in the witness's place, I know how I
6 would answer that question.
7 But, Professor, would you -- one moment, yes? Why don't you let
8 him answer it? I think he's a perfectly qualified person, coming from a
9 country that in medicine has had a reputation of excellence for decades
10 and decades. We are not talking with someone who doesn't know his
12 MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Dunjic, if you could please illuminate us on
14 this complicated, seemingly complicated issue?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, and I'm
16 glad that you've noted that I come from the country but from a country
17 with an institute with a very high reputation and we have a long
18 tradition and unfortunately experience in matters like this, so my
19 specific answer to your question is that we forensic experts establish
20 the cause of death so we note everything. As for the manner of death, is
21 the wound that is seen, is it quite legal? Actually not that term, not
22 that term legal. Did it happen accidentally, was it a suicide, was it a
23 killing, was the source of that wound that?
24 Then the Court defines the problem for us and says, "Based on
25 these elements that you have noted in your autopsy report, can we talk
1 about a specific manner of death?" I cannot directly answer that
2 question because such an injury can be caused in three different ways,
3 accidentally, it can be a suicide or a killing. In order to be able to
4 give a more specific answer, we can do that and then the Court can draw
5 the conclusion about the manner of death, whether it was accidental, a
6 suicide or a killing.
7 I need to make a very good autopsy report. I need to note or
8 report all the traces which would point to the first, second or third
9 element. I would need to have testimony of witnesses which could
10 indirectly confirm that line. I would need to have the complete records.
11 And then finally my conclusion would note that elements, for example, in
12 the right temple, perhaps that would be an entry wound and an exit wound
13 would be at the left temple, then this would need to be absolutely
14 documented with gunpowder traces but still that would not be reliable
15 evidence that this was perhaps a suicide. It could also be an accidental
16 killing or a murder.
17 I need to provide the Court information based on which they, on
18 the basis of the entire body of evidence, could determine whether it was
19 this or that. I can note that the person was right-handed, that there
20 were traces of blood or gunpowder, that on the entrance wound, there are
21 traces of blood and I could say most probably in the right hand, it was
22 touching the right temple, that's where the entry wound was, et cetera,
23 et cetera, based on which the Court would then draw the conclusion that
24 this could then amount to a suicide, an accidental killing or a killing.
25 As forensic experts, we cannot give final decision on the -- we
1 can provide information about the manner of wounding, but we cannot say
2 whether this was a self-inflicted wound, as an accident, as a consequence
3 of an accident or as a consequence of something else. I cannot say that.
4 So I cannot speak about the legitimacy of something. It's absolutely out
5 of the question that we state opinions on any legal points or whether
6 something is a legal point or not.
7 MR. OSTOJIC:
8 Q. And I recognise that, thank you very much, Dr. Dunjic, for that.
9 And so that's why we would use such classifications as you've seen
10 because that lists out specifically what instances you as a forensic
11 pathologist may or may not rely upon in determining whether or not
12 certain deaths that were caused resulted from certain circumstances;
13 isn't that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And, doctor, we have talked about two specific things here and I
16 just want to separate them for a moment. We are talking about cause of
17 death and manner of death and I started out by asking you if you have a
18 cause of death that is unknown or unascertainable, I think it was your
19 opinion that you could never then make a conclusion as to the manner of
20 death. Now I'd like to look at the opposite. If you do know the cause
21 of death, can you also have the manner of death to be unknown,
23 A. The opposite situation would be the same as the one before. I'm
24 never going to say anything about the manner of death, even if I do or do
25 not have the cause of death. The cause of death, when we are speaking in
1 principle, means whether it's an accidental death, a suicide, or a
2 killing. But I'm not going to speak about that if I don't know what the
3 cause of death is. The cause of death could be natural or violent. What
4 are the elements pointing to a violent death? So that I could then
5 determine the manner of death, whether it was a killing, suicide or an
6 accidental death. I would not go into that at all, especially if I'm not
7 aware of the cause of death.
8 Q. And I understand that but I don't know if you're following me and
9 I apologise to you and the Court for that. What I'm suggesting to you,
10 sir, is that we can have -- if we have an unknown or unascertainable
11 cause of death, in all instances, when the cause of death is unknown, the
12 manner of death should also be unknown or unascertainable, in 100 per
13 cent of the cases?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
15 MR. MITCHELL: Objection, leading, Your Honour.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. I'll restate it.
17 Q. Under what circumstances, Dr. Dunjic, could you possibly have, as
18 a reasonably prudent forensic pathologist, under what circumstances can
19 you have cause of death to be known or unknown and manner of death to be
21 A. If I understood you correctly, the manner of death, whether it's
22 accidental, a suicide or a killing, I can just give my opinion on the
23 basis of precisely established findings only on condition that this is
24 something that the Court requests us to do. The Court could say, "You
25 have the established wounds that are such and such, the cause of death is
1 established. Could this injury be caused by point blank or fire at a
2 distance and would this indicate this kind of wound infliction or a
3 different kind of wound infliction?" So perhaps I can give my opinion to
4 the Court, but it could not be the only opinion of an expert.
5 Q. But can you in any circumstances conclude or give an opinion, and
6 I respect that, that you are giving an opinion, can you give an opinion
7 as to manner of death under any circumstances if you don't know or have
8 already determined that the cause of death in -- is unascertainable or
10 A. No, I couldn't really give an opinion.
11 Q. There is no such circumstance, because none exists, it's an
12 impossibility, both in fact and in law, that a reasonably prudent
13 forensic pathologist --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Why are you asking him? Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
15 MR. MITCHELL: Objection, again, Your Honour, leading.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Yes, it's so obvious, Mr. Ostojic. It's the
17 way you phrased it, Mr. Ostojic.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll restate it.
19 Q. Dr. Dunjic, remind us how many years of forensic pathological
20 experience you have, sir.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: You can look at his grey hair. Let's move.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: It's okay, fair enough.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: You should have read his CV.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: I did but it would have been leading if I said he
25 had X amount of years, Your Honour.
1 Q. In any event, in any event, Dr. Dunjic, in all seriousness, have
2 you ever seen a forensic pathology report where the cause of death was
3 unknown or unascertainable and yet the manner of death was cited by the
4 pathologist other than in these documents that you've reviewed here?
5 A. I've never seen one.
6 Q. Thank you. Let's talk about two other concepts which is --
7 A. I must admit.
8 Q. Sorry. Thank you. Dr. Dunjic, let's talk about two other
9 concepts, and that is exhumation and relative or compared to post-mortem
10 examination. Yesterday, early in your testimony on approximately or on
11 page 30, specifically, you said that at first blush, when you look at
12 those reports, they seem essentially acceptable, and then you went on to
13 say that you had "a major objection and that there was omissions by the
14 examiners in the absence of a detailed description".
15 Do you -- and there's more, all observed changes on the corpses
16 in the body.
17 Do you, as a forensic pathologist, when we talk about exhumations
18 and I think it's on page 127 of your report under Roman numeral number 5,
19 you initially state, I'll just -- it's 127, roman numeral 6, actually,
20 and you state, "The standard methods were generally used and the graves
21 were analysed in detail." Do you see that? It's in paragraph 5 in your
22 opinion section, just toward the end of your report. Where it starts,
23 sir, if I can just help a little bit, where it states "the applied
24 methodology of the evacuation and exhumation." Roman numeral 6.
25 A. Yes. I stated that in that report and I think I mentioned that
1 yesterday, meaning the applied methodology of exhumations as described
2 actually what is done in an exhumation, how the bodies are transported,
3 marked, where they are kept and so on, as well as the process from taking
4 them out from the cold rooms to the actual autopsy itself and then the
5 description of the procedure that is carried out, this is absolutely
6 accurate, and there are no remarks or objections there. This is as far
7 as the procedure goes. Then the reports on the autopsies that I examined
8 are of a certain -- have a certain template. It's a form where all the
9 things that need to be looked at are listed as well as there is a space
10 where the description should be given, so all that I have mentioned so
11 far is standard procedure, and it's all accurate. There are no remarks
12 on that.
13 The remarks are in another part that relate to the pathologist
14 himself, who has taken this particular form and has inspected the body
15 and noted down whatever he noted down. What is actually noted down, what
16 is written down. As I said, as for external and internal and
17 traumatological findings are all separate things. We have a standard
18 that we need to stick to in these collective reports, how this procedure
19 should be carried out, and in these collective reports, the way that was
20 put, you can see that everything was done properly, but the individual
21 reports, and what is said in the individual reports, which is why I asked
22 to see these autopsy reports, there, you can see the points which I
23 remarked on, my objections to these autopsy reports, and this is
24 objective that diagnoses are used, that they are superficial, there are
25 no detailed descriptions and there is a conclusion about the cause of
1 death and death -- the fact of the death itself.
2 Q. And we do see that obviously, Dr. Dunjic, on the next page of
3 your report. Under that same subsection, on page 128, after you comment
4 on the San Antonio report you find that as you just said it was
5 insufficiently precise or imprecise, there was superficial and that there
6 were arbitrary conclusions made. My question to you is this: What if
7 any effect does this have on the totality in your opinion on the
8 exhumation process that was conducted?
9 A. This is evident in the autopsy reports and in the things that I
10 mentioned yesterday and today. What I noted is not related to the
11 objections. I just put them there as an illustration to confirm what I
12 said yesterday and the day before and what I said before in my analysis
13 of the individual reports.
14 Q. Well, let me ask you a more precise question. You as a forensic
15 pathologist, when you're looking at that knowing that the exhumations
16 were insufficiently precise, arbitrary and, as you put it superficial, do
17 you have an opinion --
18 MR. MITCHELL: Objection, Your Honour, that's extremely leading.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, I respectfully disagree. First, I
21 didn't even state the question. Second, I can ask this witness on direct
22 if he has an opinion based on factors that he's concluded and whether --
23 I just don't see how it's leading at all, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Go ahead with your question. Mr. Ostojic is
25 referring to the witness's report, specifically two parts where the same
1 words are used so please go ahead.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Dr. Dunjic, I was starting to ask you this specific question. As
4 a forensic pathologist, based on a reasonable degree of certainty, when
5 you look at exhumation reports which are insufficiently precise,
6 arbitrary and superficial, what does that cause you as a forensic
7 pathologist to do, if anything?
8 A. Objectively, one of the reactions from positions that I'm in, as
9 a professor of forensic medicine is that this was carried out with
10 younger colleagues with not enough experience. This is one of the
11 possible explanations why this was so. Or when I say insufficient
12 experience, what I mean is that people who are not specialised in this
13 work conducting the autopsies. I'm not sure of that, but actually the
14 way the findings are put can lead one to such a conclusion.
15 Q. Well, based on your experience, doctor, do you have an opinion
16 whether you would find those reports to be reliable or not, given that
17 you found that they are imprecise, superficial and arbitrary, among other
19 A. I cannot answer specifically and I cannot say that this applies
20 to all the locations. I said very precisely in the analysis and pointed
21 out the autopsy reports that were very precise, according to the forensic
22 medicine standards. I did not say that this applied to each one. But I
23 found a large number of such protocols as such and cited them, but for a
24 number of them you can see that they were very precisely done which
25 indicates that they were done by a pathologist with a broad and
1 specialised knowledge and experience.
2 Q. I'm sorry, doctor, and forgive me, I wasn't implying that each
3 and every one of the exhumations were done arbitrarily, superficially or
4 without precision, but those that you've identified, my question was just
5 those that you made that conclusion with respect to those exhumation
6 sites, would you find them to be reliable or unreliable, the results or
7 conclusions from those exhumations that you criticised, found deviations,
8 in your opinion?
9 A. I pointed that out, that these were reports that a person could
10 not rely on or comment on them in a particular way without exceeding
11 one's area of expertise. You can actually give an opinion but the
12 opinion must be based on a fact which as such is very precisely defined
13 and stated.
14 Q. Let me move now to that second subject. We covered a bit here,
15 exhumations, the post-mortem examinations, and I've noticed in your
16 report specifically on pages 35, 36 and peppered throughout the report,
17 where you use the term such as impossible to establish, absolutely
18 arbitrary, incorrect, incomplete and superficial description and you go
19 on on page 37, unclear, incomplete, superficial again, and then
20 ultimately, unprofessional description. End quote. I think if you just
21 look on page 35, 36 and 37 you'll find that just for the sake of time.
22 When you say, sir, it was an unprofessional description, are you
23 saying that your opinion based on a reasonable degree of forensic
24 pathology is that the professionals who rendered these opinions failed to
25 meet the standard of care required of a reasonably prudent forensic
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
3 MR. MITCHELL: Objection, leading, Your Honour.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. I'll restate it, Your Honour because --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: It is leading.
6 MR. OSTOJIC: It is, there is no doubt.
7 Q. What is your -- what do you mean when you make these conclusions?
8 We can go through each one but let's just try to short circuit a little
9 bit. When you reach the conclusion that it's impossible to establish,
10 absolutely arbitrary, et cetera, what are you saying?
11 A. I am indicating to you that that report, such as it is, the way
12 it's defined and written, is not checkable and it's impossible to prove,
13 meaning if somebody claims that it's a gunshot wound but has not
14 described it as a gunshot wound then it's impossible to confirm that,
15 just as when we are talking about the cause of death, we are talking
16 about forensic medicine, we cannot perhaps establish if the wound was
17 inflicted before or after death so in that case we can talk about lack of
18 experience or lack of professionalism, when the forensic medicine method
19 of work was not adhered to and then we come to perhaps subjective
21 So these are some examples that I used to illustrate the
22 objections or remarks I came out with in relation to specific cases. For
23 example, when we are talking about places where we have head injuries
24 that were caused on the scene of death or at point-blank range. This is
25 something where it would be very difficult to state because there would
1 be no finding indicating such a fact. So in some cases, it could -- this
2 could be a personal position, unless the person who drafted the report
3 actually saw for himself when the person who died actually sustained a
4 wound or an injury in such a way.
5 Q. And therefore can you give us an opinion, doctor, as to whether
6 or not that would be considered by you or any other forensic pathologist
7 as being reliable or unreliable?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
9 MR. MITCHELL: Objection, Your Honour, the question is rather
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. Well, I don't think it is, but I'll restate
12 it just so that we could pass and the Court doesn't have to rule.
13 Q. Sir, we are talking about post-mortem examination, and you've
14 given us in your report and your testimony these last two days certain
15 opinions that you found that the pathologists who conducted these
16 post-mortem examinations conducted them with certain deviations or
17 defects, if you will, with all due respect to them, that you've
18 highlighted for us, such as impossible to establish, meaning the
19 external, internal and traumatological findings, that you also find that
20 they are absolutely arbitrary, also arbitrary, also incorrect, et cetera,
21 et cetera. With respect to those findings, sir, you as a reasonably
22 prudent forensic pathologist, do you consider these post-mortem
23 examinations to be reliable or unreliable?
24 A. In short, according to my criteria, they should be considered
25 unreliable. The fact is that the corpse exists. Everything else that
1 should have accompanied the autopsy report is imprecise, incorrect,
2 superficial, so that I was not able to draw a conclusion from such a
3 finding. I cannot deny the fact that there is a corpse, but this part, I
4 cannot accept, and this is precisely why I commented on individual cases
5 and individual segments.
6 The same thing applies to the collective reports that I commented
7 on. I did not put objections on the entire report because in three
8 sentences, this and this was said that does not, for example, correspond
9 to the individual reports. I just gave an illustration in order to be
10 able to confirm the individual autopsy report. In some segments of the
11 collective reports, there is nothing to object to. These are some facts,
12 assertions. But in some of those, their assertions, some of the
13 pathologists and those who drafted the collective reports showed
14 subjectivity in relation to some conclusion that they reached which is
15 not covered by an adequate finding so that the person reading the
16 collective report, for example, if we are talking about point blank or
17 executions where these would be the last in a series of injuries, well,
18 this is something that cannot be accepted absolutely because there is no
19 medical element that could confirm this. So in that segment of that
20 report, I can consider it personally nuanced and subjective. It's some
21 impression of the person, and a subjective position of the person stated
22 in the report.
23 Q. Yesterday I think you told us at page 51, line 7 through 8 that,
24 "A conclusion in an autopsy report has to represent an objective
25 judgement of what has been established by the findings," end quote. And
1 what you're suggesting to us is that it does quite the opposite in these
2 autopsy reports and the material that you reviewed.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
4 MR. MITCHELL: Objection, leading, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, it is leading.
6 MR. OSTOJIC:
7 Q. Can you make a conclusion as to the objectivity or subjectivity
8 of the autopsy reports and do you have an opinion as to whether or not
9 the forensic pathologists deviated from the standard that they should
10 maintain an objective judgement of what has been established based upon
11 the findings, those three that we have discussed?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
13 MR. MITCHELL: Asked and answered, Your Honour.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: I can really respond quickly. I think we talked
15 about reliability and not objectivity and I think that --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: No. You dealt with objectivity already, Mr.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. Doctor, yesterday you mentioned on page 48, lines I think 22, the
20 ABCs of professional -- of your profession. Do you remember that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You also went on in the next lines, I think it's lines 1 through
23 7 to say that when you reviewed these post-mortem examination autopsy
24 reports by the pathologists, you saw nothing, and I'm quoting, "We see
25 nothing but mere statements saying that this is it, and you have to take
1 it for the face value."
2 My question to you, sir, based upon a reasonable degree of
3 certainty, is that how pathological reports are supposed to be drafted
4 where there is no bases for the opinions or conclusions that a
5 pathologist reaches and renders?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell?
7 MR. MITCHELL: Asked and answered, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the witness has already made himself clear
9 on these issues and what you are trying to ask him now pertain more to
10 the area of submissions than to questions to this witness. He's already
11 given us --
12 MR. OSTOJIC: With all due respect, there is some, just so the
13 record is clear, there is some specificity to the question but I will
14 I'll move on with the court's instruction.
15 Q. Dr. Dunjic, having reviewed all the reports from the
16 archeologists, anthropologists, forensic pathologists, et cetera, did you
17 find any instance where the -- where those --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him put the question first, please.
19 MR. OSTOJIC:
20 Q. -- where those persons from the OTP actually concluded at any
21 time one corpse having either been the cause of death or a manner of
22 death from a legitimate military combat engagement?
23 A. If I may, Your Honour and dear counsel, you're putting me in a
24 position to provide a summary or general assessment of what I did. I
25 will, however, act as a forensic pathologist and I will answer in the
1 following. I precisely quoted all of the documents I had analysed, and I
2 commented on each and every one of them, providing my opinion.
3 Therefore, I cannot speak about it as a whole, since your question was of
4 that nature. I stick by the facts I had analysed, written down,
5 commented upon for each individual case, in terms of autopsy reports and
6 the collective reports I quoted. I cannot draw a conclusion of the type
7 such as you had defined in your question.
8 Q. I'm sorry, Dr. Dunjic, I couldn't find any, so I just wasn't sure
9 if you found any. Let me ask you this because earlier today immediately
10 after the last break, I think it's on page 70, you talked about samples
11 being taken from other parts of the corpse, if you will, the hands and
12 all that. Do you know if there was any analysis done to determine if --
13 and I'm directing your attention specifically to one of the conclusions
14 you have in your report, which is under again page 127, roman numeral 5,
15 did you find any analysis from the forensic pathologists, whether it was
16 a cursory or a detailed review, that they conducted any gunpowder residue
17 examination to determine whether the deceased individual was military or
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me ask him a question first. Is it possible
20 with the kind of dead bodies in their various stages of either
21 putrefaction or skeletonisation, is it possible to conduct such
22 examinations as firearms residue or gunpowder residue after these bodies
23 have been buried, in particular, and sometimes reburied, Mr. Dunjic, or
24 Professor Dunjic?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such an analysis would be very
1 difficult to carry out, such as referred to by some of the people
2 involved, and the results obtained in such a way would be highly
3 debatable. However, something that probably was necessary in certain
4 situations was to analyse the traces that could be found in the area of
5 the wound or damage itself. I'm not talking only about external factors
6 of gunpowder, explosion, and residue either on the skin, bones or
7 clothing, but inside the trajectory, the canal. That means that on
8 putrefied corpses it is very difficult to prove, precisely because of the
9 state of decay of the soft tissue. That is why we insist on examining
10 the canal or the trajectory of the word on hard tissue, for example from
11 one end to the other end of the bone. Once a projectile had gone
12 through, not only gunpowder residue may remain but particles of the
13 casing itself.
14 As for gunpowder residue that would be a very difficult thing to
15 do and results may prove unobtainable. However, in those cases in which
16 we have soft tissue preserved as well as the clothing on the corpse, in
17 certain situations, depending on the degree of changes, such analyses
18 should have been conducted. It wasn't done. Therefore, it renders any
19 comment on that impossible. I believe that would be my response.
20 Forensically speaking I agree with what my colleague said, that it was
21 difficult and impossible to do because of the putrefaction changes in
22 particular on skeletonised corpses. But, however, it should have been
23 noted in the autopsy report as something that was not done or was
24 impossible to do. That is all I would like to say about that.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: May I continue, Your Honour?
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
3 Q. On page 74, just now on line 1 you used the term that you used
4 throughout or in parts of your report, "Debatable." Now, if you could
5 just explain to us what you mean when you say it's debatable?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
7 MR. MITCHELL: Objection, vague, Your Honour. Can we have a
8 specific situation?
9 MR. OSTOJIC: Sure, Your Honour, I'll be happy to help them.
10 Q. Sir, if you look at your report, specifically case number 055,
11 056, 057, 058 and 062, for example, where you use the word "debatable"
12 and you used it specifically on line 1 in answering Your Honour
13 Mr. President's question on page 74 and I just want to have a better
14 understanding of what you mean, sir, when you use the word "debatable"
15 and just because everyone can follow along, I'll ask that it be brought
16 up on e-court. As I said, we could take any one of those, so let's take
18 A. What location, please? You mean the cause of death as something
19 that is debatable?
20 Q. Correct.
21 A. [No interpretation].
22 Q. If you could just turn to page 56, for example, which is -- of
23 Dr. Dunjic's report 20990, and obviously the several pages before that,
24 and several pages after that, I think I've cited the case number but if
25 we just look back at ERN X004-6156, case number NK 08057 B, and it's
1 under your comment section right before the next case that you've done
2 which is 058, you used the word "debatable."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I just want to make sure that it's on e-court so that my learned
5 friends can follow along with us. Again, just so it's clear, it's page
6 56 of Dr. Dunjic's report and it has the court transcript page number
7 when it was filed as 20990, but any one of those ten pages because I
8 think it's in each of those pages would be adequate?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we can find this page quickly. We have found
10 it. Have you found it from the Prosecution side?
11 MR. OSTOJIC: They are not even looking.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: We trust his answer on this one.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: Oh, they have raised the -- okay.
14 Q. Doctor, we just have actually a minute but could you just explain
15 and I'm sorry, it is late so sometimes we get giddy, but can you just
16 tell me, please, when you use the word debatable as you have in your
17 answer to the Court's question, what are you really saying there?
18 A. Under that term, in a number of cases, I meant the following. I
19 tried to be as precise as possible. I wrote down, as in other cases, the
20 cause of death is debatable. I had already explained why and how. I
21 simply referred to the topic of the cause of death that we discussed.
22 That's why I used the word "debatable" in that context. This includes
23 all the cases I referred to as such. And I had elaborated upon that in
24 the preceding chapters when discussing the cause of death. I'm trying to
25 say that I don't want to discuss this case in particular because I had
1 already discussed that previously. I only commented on the segment it
2 referred to. As for the cause of death, I simply wanted to refer the
3 reader back to what I've already said, ante-mortem, post-mortem,
4 practically and theoretically and why we use certain things when
5 discussing that. That is the context of the word.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need to have to leave it at that today.
7 Thank you very much, Professor Dunjic. We will continue tomorrow
8 morning. I'm being asked to check with you how much longer, how much
9 more time you require to finish your direct.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: No more than 15 to 20 minutes, if I may. I'll try
11 to look to pare it do you know if the Court wishes.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Tomorrow morning at 9.00. Thank you so
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.
15 to be reconvened on Friday, the 27th day of June,
16 2008, at 9.00 a.m.