1 Monday, 24 Jun 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is Case Number

7 IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus Stanislav Galic.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

9 Before continuing where we stopped last Friday, I have a few

10 questions in respect of the 92 bis statements. The -- well, let me say,

11 the new statements have been filed approximately two weeks ago. I did not

12 see any response to that from the Defence. Is this correct?

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think that the response will

14 come in the course of this week, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But is it not seven days that the Rules give

16 you for a response? After notification, and I take that filing the

17 documents is --

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This motion was dated 31st of

19 May?

20 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was the 92 bis statements were filed -- I

21 haven't got exactly in my mind at this moment, but I remember it was

22 Thursday or Friday two weeks ago

23 MR. IERACE: It was the six of June. If I may assist. The

24 Prosecution filed, this morning, some further submissions which seek to

25 apply the principals of the Appeals Chamber judgment of the 7th of June.

1 So assuming that that is acceptable to the Trial Chamber, I think I

2 indicated last week that we would do that. The Prosecution would have no

3 objection to the Defence having an opportunity to respond to those

4 submissions filed this morning. Thank you.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Since the Chamber has to hear the parties,

8 apart from any responses, we would like to find a moment during this week.

9 So could you please take care that, let's say on from Wednesday, that you

10 are prepared to make any oral arguments you would additionally like to

11 make.

12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, could I respectfully suggest Thursday

13 as an appropriate day. Tomorrow we have witness AD. I anticipate

14 evidence in chief would be of the order of three hours. So we should

15 finish him easily by Thursday.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, Thursday is after Wednesday, so you are

17 all prepared.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This is acceptable for the

19 Defence, Mr. President. Thank you very much.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

21 Then -- but there is another issue. We still have to deal with

22 the documents that are tendered during the testimony of the expert

23 witness, Dr. -- Professor Zecevic.

24 Madam Registrar, would you please guide through the documents. Us

25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. We have Prosecutor's Exhibit

1 3721, which is sketch number 1 and Prosecutor's Exhibit 3722, which is

2 sketch number 2.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --

4 MR. STAMP: Before we proceed from there may I respectfully ask

5 that the full statement of the expert witness filed the 11th of April 2002

6 be also received in evidence.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it has been filed as the expert report on the

8 basis of which he was examined and cross-examined.

9 MR. STAMP: Indeed.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that was, Mr. Stamp, number -- you

11 mentioned a number, I think --

12 MR. STAMP: That would be 3723. P3723.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes Ms. Pilipovic.

14 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the Exhibit

15 tendered by the Prosecution, 3494, a statement by Mr. Zecevic, the 26th

16 and 27th of October, and reference numbers are given too fast by the

17 counsel. The Defence is objecting to this part being submitted and

18 tendered as evidence because in this part of the statement, Mr. Berko

19 Zecevic is speaking about air bombing, air bombs, and we believe that this

20 part of the statement of Mr. Zecevic is not relevant to the case of the

21 General Galic. So for this reason, we believe that this part of the

22 statement cannot be exhibit of the Prosecution.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Any response to that, Mr. Stamp?

24 MR. STAMP: We could deal with that matter in any way which is

25 convenient to the Court. That part of the statement was left in out of an

1 abundance of caution because the Rule refers to the full statement. So we

2 did not think that, without any leave from the Court, we ought to redact

3 anything from it. If the Court so orders, we will be prepared to redact

4 that aspect, however I think that the matter is before the Court and the

5 Court is entitled to review it and to use whatever parts of it it deems

6 relative and probative. However, I am in the hands of the Court. It

7 could be a solution found one way or the other.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Would the parties agree that there is no direct

9 relevance in that part of the report?

10 MR. STAMP: Indeed.

11 JUDGE ORIE: So the parties would agree if we would either ask you

12 to provide us a copy with stricken out that part of it, or that we would

13 decide that we would admit the -- admit the statement in evidence, but not

14 in respect of the -- that part of the statement.

15 MR. STAMP: Any way it pleases the Court.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will give a decision on that after the

17 break. I mean, it seems to be a rather technical matter by now.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would prefer, also in order to avoid

20 whatever risk of contamination of our minds, that the exhibit would be

21 redacted to the extent as just discussed.

22 MR. STAMP: Very well.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 Being there is nothing else at this very moment, is the

25 Prosecution ready to call its next witness?

1 MR. IERACE: It is, Mr. President. I call Dr. Stuart Turner.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Usher, could you -- yes, I see you are

3 already active.

4 MR. IERACE: While he is coming, Mr. President, I propose to show

5 him a copy of his report, simply in order for him to identify it and the

6 report contains his education and qualifications. Unless you think it

7 necessary, I will rely upon that appendix, number I, as the qualifying of

8 him as an expert.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, always of course will be a possibility of

10 cross-examining the witness. But I don't think it is necessary to have

11 him repeat everything in appendix I.

12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, would you prefer that he was shown a

13 copy from the bar table or the actual copy which has been filed, which I

14 assume Madam Registrar has?

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that these copies are made from --

16 [The witness entered court]

17 WITNESS: STUART TURNER

18 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon.

19 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Turner, I presume. Yes. I take it that you

21 understand me in a language -- that you can hear me in a language you

22 understand?

23 THE WITNESS: I can.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I would like you to ask you to put in your earphones

25 because someone might say something in a language that you do not

1 understand and you will certainly need these earphones, unless you speak

2 fluent Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian and French.

3 THE WITNESS: No.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps you should put on your earphones.

5 Before giving testimony in this court, I take it that you understand the

6 English language at this moment?

7 THE WITNESS: Yes.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Before giving testimony in this court the Rules of

9 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you

10 will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The text

11 of this declaration will be handed out to you -- is already handed out to

12 you by the usher. May I invite you to make that declaration.

13 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

14 whole truth and nothing but the truth.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Dr. Turner. Please be seated.

16 Dr. Turner, you will first be examined by counsel for the

17 Prosecution. I see that you are putting something which I cannot see from

18 here on your table. Unless it is white paper where you would like to make

19 some notes. If there is anything else, you certainly will be asked to or

20 something will be put in front of you if necessary. And if there is

21 anything that you would like to consult, please ask permission to do so.

22 Mr. Ierace, please proceed.

23 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

24 [Examined by Mr. Ierace]

25 Q. Dr. Turner are you a psychiatrist by profession, with rooms in

1 Harley Street in London in the United Kingdom?

2 A. I am.

3 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I ask that the witness be shown a copy

4 of his report.

5 Q. Sir, would you please go to appendix I of the report which

6 commences on page 23.

7 Commencing on page 23, do you set out your various educational

8 qualifications including postgraduate training and your main appointments

9 previous appointments, and other activities?

10 A. I do.

11 Q. On page 23, under the subheading "Court Work," you referred to

12 having received training as a single joint expert. Could you tell us

13 briefly what a "single joint expert" is in the context of civil litigation

14 in the United Kingdom?

15 A. A single joint expert is an expert appointed by the court in the

16 setting of personal injury litigation. A single expert is there to advise

17 the court, not to take one side or another, indeed, no expert should take

18 one side or another. But a single expert is appointed by the court to

19 prepare a psychiatric assessment, which both parties have agreed to.

20 Q. Now, when did you first qualify as a psychiatrist?

21 A. I became a consultant psychiatrist in 1987.

22 Q. Have you since then developed expertise in the area of trauma?

23 A. I have. In fact, I was working in trauma somewhat before then, as

24 a psychiatrist, but have since then developed a national centre for the

25 treatment of people with traumatic stress reactions.

1 Q. Now, do you recognise the document as a whole to be a report

2 prepared by you and dated the 6th of May 2002?

3 A. I do. And it was this report by the way, Mr. President, that I

4 had taken from my bag, which I have now put back into my bag. I am sorry

5 about that.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is what I expected as a matter of fact, but

7 you are confronted by the copy provided to you by the Court -- by the

8 Prosecution.

9 MR. IERACE:

10 Q. Does your signature appear on page 22?

11 A. It appears on page 22.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President, that completes

14 examination-in-chief.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ierace.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. It

17 happens that we received the B/C/S version rather belatedly of this

18 interesting document. We are going to ask for leave to cross-examine in

19 tandem, please.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, do you have -- because we have not ruled yet on

21 the time you would take, could you be, perhaps after having prepared

22 cross-examination, be more precise, we gave you a guideline at that time

23 that it would -- that the efforts would be 50 per cent of what you

24 estimate was?

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I believe that this witness

1 was supposed to last for two and a half hours, the examination of the

2 witness would last for two and a half hours, if I remember correctly, and

3 it was for this reason that we prepared. But I think that we will

4 probably go below this time. I would just confer. Just a moment, please.

5 [Defence counsel confer]

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] About two hours, Mr.

7 President.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, even if it is in tandem.

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We don't know yet because we

10 were very surprised by the very short time taken for examination-in-chief

11 so we don't know who is going to start first. It will be Ms. Pilipovic.

12 Thank you.

13 Cross-examined by Ms. Pilipovic:

14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Turner, good afternoon.

15 A. Good afternoon.

16 Q. Mr. Turner, in your report that you submitted to the Court on the

17 6th of May 2002, under item 1, you said that you gave your expert opinion

18 on the problem that you were given and that you worked out that this was

19 based on your qualifications and your work experience. Is that correct?

20 A. My expert opinion is based on qualifications, my experience, and

21 my instruction.

22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Turner.

23 Now, Mr. Turner, not going into your qualifications, I would like

24 us to clarify your work with the courts. On page 26 of your report, that

25 is, in the translation into B/C/S, that is 0305461 of the translation, but

1 you said, and I believe that you will agree with me, that approximately 5

2 per cent of your work so far is in connection to legal -- to litigation

3 cases and criminal cases.

4 A. I think there is a problem with translation. Litigation is not --

5 is not quite accurate. In my report, I set out that about 5 per cent of

6 my current work is in criminal or family court cases. That is distinct

7 from litigation, as I understand it.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand the difference you make because

9 you are talking about approximately equal number assigned cases or civil

10 litigation. And you are talking about litigation, so not all your court

11 work is litigation, that is what you want to tell us.

12 THE WITNESS: That's right.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, I do take it that you were referring

14 to, at least a part of the 5 per cent where court work is not always

15 mentioned litigation. So, if it is a matter of translation, then could

16 you please repeat your question and let's hope that no confusion comes up.

17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

18 Q. Mr. Turner, 5 per cent of your work so far has been in connection

19 for either criminal or for family courts. Could you be precise, please.

20 A. I would agree that 5 -- about 5 per cent of my work is in

21 connection with criminal and family courts. I am not sure I can be more

22 precise than that.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 Mr. Turner, could you tell us in relation to this 5 per cent of

25 your work that you gave specification for, could you tell us, what per

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 cent is linked to criminal cases?

2 A. I suppose, as an estimate, I would say probably about the same

3 amount of criminal and family work. So probably about two and a half,

4 two per cent.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 Mr. Turner, could you tell us what did you give your expert

7 opinion on when we are talking about criminal cases? When I say that,

8 what I mean is, if you can answer whether you gave your expert opinion on

9 the state of mind of the perpetrator or the state of mind of the victim?

10 And if you gave your opinion on the -- both, both perpetrators and the

11 victim could you give us then how many of one cases and how many of the

12 other, and also before which courts did you testify as an expert.

13 A. When I talk about criminal cases I am talking about my role as

14 assessor of the perpetrator or the alleged perpetrator. And I am talking

15 about giving evidence before a criminal court in which the perpetrator is

16 being prosecuted. There may, in addition, over and above this, be matters

17 of civil redress either through a compensation authority or through

18 litigation. But that would be what I have dealt with under another

19 category. When I am talking about criminal court work, I am talking about

20 the assessment of a perpetrator or alleged perpetrator, in the context of

21 Prosecution.

22 Q. Mr. Turner, thank you.

23 Now, could you, with this answer, can confirm that you did not

24 give -- you did not testify, did not give evidence, in cases where you

25 were an expert, you did not assess the state of mind of a victim that is,

1 the psychological state of mind of a person who suffered consequences as a

2 result of being a victim, of having been a victim?

3 A. No. The vast majority of my work involves assess the state of

4 mind of victims. But that would not be dealt with in the United Kingdom

5 in the setting of a criminal court. That would be dealt with in other

6 settings. That's why I separated it out. It would be dealt with, for

7 example, in the setting of someone seeking, seeking compensation as a

8 victim or someone seeking asylum because of being victimised in another

9 place. That's the majority of my work.

10 Q. Mr. Turner, could you tell us in your field of work, how did you

11 assess the state of mind of a victim? When I say that, what I mean is,

12 was the objective of your examination -- were these the victims who

13 suffered fear because of what has been done to them? Did they suffer pain

14 and so on?

15 A. In the vast majority of my work, what I have to do is to assess

16 the mental state of people, as a psychiatrist. So I am interested in

17 looking at their emotional state or other aspects of the person, to try to

18 determine, as best I can as a psychiatrist, whether they may have an

19 injury as a consequence of a particular experience. And if they have an

20 injury, its nature, its cause, its treatment, its severity.

21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Turner.

22 Since you confirm that, in your work, you also testified on the

23 state of mind, you gave evidence on the state of mind of the victim, could

24 you tell us your opinion, did you make it just based on the data and

25 written documents, or did you also base your opinion on using psychiatric

1 methods?

2 A. I am a psychiatrist, so when I'm asked to give evidence on the

3 state of mind of a victim, then my normal practice would be to carry out a

4 psychiatric assessment, to interview, to examine the mental state, and to

5 look at a bundle of relevant documents, including, where possible, past

6 medical records or other contemporaneous notes.

7 Q. Could you tell us which psychiatric methods do you use when you

8 are giving evidence in courts? Giving your expert evidence in courts. Do

9 you use interview? Do you use observation for a longer period of time?

10 Do you use psychological tests?

11 A. To some degree, it depends on the nature of the problem. But if I

12 am examining a victim, then I would normally interview. I use a

13 semi-structured assessment of mental state, based on a particular

14 diagnostic system, the diagnostic and statistical manual. Sometimes

15 self-report measures or personality questionnaires or other assessment

16 tools are required. But it depends a lot on the nature of the problem

17 that I am being asked to comment on.

18 A. Mr. Turner, would you agree with me that a serious psychiatric

19 analysis of victims that are supposed to examine in order to find fear, it

20 cannot be done without a direct interview with the victims or a victim?

21 A. If I am being asked to assess an individual or court case, my

22 normal practice would be to interview that individual. I think that if I

23 am being asked to comment on the effect on a population, which I think is

24 what I am being asked to do here, then different methods are appropriate.

25 It would not be possible for me to interview a population.

1 Q. Yes, I understand your answer, Mr. Turner.

2 Could you, perhaps, tell us whether what would be needed would be

3 a sample, and what would be the sample that you would need, in relation to

4 a whole population, in order to come to your conclusions? For instance if

5 we assume that a population is 300.000 people, how many people would you

6 need for a sample, for you to interview in order to give your opinion, for

7 the whole of this population?

8 A. That is not an answer that I can simply provide. Scientifically,

9 if we were looking at a whole population, which I want to qualify, but if

10 we were looking at a whole population, then it would be reasonable to

11 carry out a survey of a sample of that population. Scientifically, there

12 is something called a "power analysis" which is a way of identifying what

13 the sample size should be. The power analysis depends upon prior

14 estimation from previous surveys of the likely scale of disturbance. If

15 the likely scale of disturbance is high, then the sample size required for

16 a scientific analysis is relatively small.

17 If the estimated disturbance is low, then the sample is

18 correspondingly larger. That is a power analysis. To calculate a power

19 analysis would require a computer. It's a fairly standard approach, but

20 not something I can answer here.

21 Q. Mr. Turner, would you agree with me that the expert witness's

22 opinion should be completely truthful, correct, and based on facts?

23 A. Of course.

24 Q. When I say "fully," I would like you to confirm to us whether you

25 took into consideration all the relevant facts in order to do your report?

1 A. I took into consideration all the facts known to me. I must

2 qualify at this point and say that some of the material provided to me, I

3 qualify in my report because some of it is based on witness evidence or

4 allegation. It is not for me to say whether those are facts. But I do

5 qualify that in one of the early paragraphs of my report. But this report

6 is prepared on any information that I thought was relevant.

7 Q. Mr. Turner can you tell us what information did you assess to be

8 relevant, as an expert, in order to write your report?

9 A. I carried out -- I looked at the material provided for me in my

10 instruction, which I set out in the report. I looked at the witness

11 material provided to me. But the main focus of my report was on the

12 scientific literature, which is material that I have reasonable

13 familiarity with. But in any case, I conducted computerized searches to

14 try to identify additional material with which I, perhaps, hadn't been

15 familiar beforehand.

16 Q. Mr. Turner, under point 9 of your report, page 4 of the

17 translation, but it is also point 9 in the English version, you said that

18 you had to work on the basis of the assumption that the Prosecution would

19 broadly establish the facts contained in the indictment from which you

20 drew your facts. Is that correct?

21 A. It is roughly correct. What I say there is that I am quoting from

22 an indictment, the indictment includes material which the Prosecution has

23 to establish at trial. It is not for an expert witness to determine if

24 that material is right or wrong. That's for the Court. And I am

25 qualifying my report explicitly by saying that I am aware that this is

1 something which the Court will have to determine, as I go through my

2 opinion. But the bulk of my opinion is based on trying to find -- trying

3 to look at the scientific literature and see how it relates to some of

4 that witness evidence. What I say here is if the Tribunal does not

5 broadly accept this material, then some of the conclusions I may draw on

6 the basis of that material should also not be accepted. I tried to make

7 that explicit in this paragraph.

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Turner.

9 Could you tell us which facts, which are the facts which the

10 Prosecution must prove so that your opinion can be accepted?

11 A. What I set out here is material from an indictment, for example,

12 in paragraph 8, I quote from the first schedule to the indictment,

13 describing 27 incidents involving shooting of civilians. And in the

14 second schedule, five incidents of shelling of civilian groups. For

15 example, the shelling of a football game, civilian group waiting for water

16 and so on.

17 Now, my job is not to say whether those incidents happened or

18 didn't happen, but I need to offer the Court advice on the assumption that

19 they may have happened and how might people have reacted to that sort of

20 experience. That is what I try to do.

21 Q. Dr. Turner do you consider that the findings of your report and

22 your opinion are objective, based on the premises that still have not been

23 proved?

24 A. I think my report is objective and I set out any qualifications

25 that I think are appropriate in the report.

1 Q. Dr. Turner, under point 36, page 23, of your opinion report, you

2 state -- quote a document which you refer to -- you speak about a document

3 given by the author John -- an author by the name of John. Could you

4 perhaps clarify on the basis of which opinion or which literature you

5 provided information under item 36? Specifically, I am referring to the

6 Kosevo hospital.

7 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I assume that the reference to "John"

8 is probably a reference to Jones which appears in the third line of the

9 English version of the report at paragraph 36.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Is that correct, Ms. Pilipovic? So John should be

11 Jones?

12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That is right,

13 Your Honour.

14 THE WITNESS: This is a reference to a published report in the

15 British Medical Journal and at the very end of my report, I give a list of

16 citations, including the reference of this report by Jones, 1995,

17 published in the British Medical Journal with the page reference and

18 volume number.

19 As I say, I did look through the medical literature with a

20 computerized search. This report was a report that came through as being

21 of relevance to Sarajevo.

22 Q. Mr. Turner, is this a -- the report that you refer to, is it a

23 letter from Sarajevo on pages 1052 and 1054. Is that literature a part of

24 your report which you, in fact, refer to and can you tell us whether it is

25 question of a two-page letter, published in the mentioned medical journal?

1 A. It is an article which has a title, "Letter from Sarajevo." That

2 is not the same as saying it is a published letter, as would normally be

3 understood in the academic press. But it is an article from Dr. Jones in

4 Sarajevo. And as material in the published literature, it seemed of

5 relevance to mention it.

6 Q. Mr. Turner, in that article which you used as literature, did you

7 come to information regarding assistance of psychiatric patients at the

8 Kosevo hospital?

9 A. She talks about the situation in the Kosevo hospital and talks

10 about the help offered to psychiatric patients, and the change in pattern

11 of presentation of those patients.

12 Q. Mr. Turner, did you have occasion to inform yourself about medical

13 documentation which was used by Mrs. Jones when writing her report or

14 letter?

15 A. It is Dr. Jones, for the translation, not "Mrs. Jones." She is a

16 psychiatrist. No, I don't know -- it would not be normal practice to try

17 to seek information underpinning a report in a peer review journal like

18 the British Medical Journal. Normally the practice would be to look at

19 the report itself, which is what I have done.

20 Q. In other words, Dr. Turner, you were never in a situation to deal

21 with official data regarding people who were patients of the Kosevo

22 hospital?

23 A. I don't believe I have come across a reference providing that

24 information, so, no, the answer is: What I have seen about the Kosevo

25 hospital is what is described in the medical literature.

1 Q. Mr. Turner, in your report, under point 10, you said that while

2 you were studying external sources, you came across many reports

3 containing similar descriptions. When I am saying this and mentioning a

4 great number of reports, are these reports of the medical services in

5 Sarajevo that you used, given the information you provided under item 10?

6 A. I have -- I would regard the report by Dr. Jones who was working

7 in Bosnia as being a report from the medical service in Sarajevo. I have

8 also seen literature, for example, prepared more anecdotally by Dr.

9 Aitcheson [phoen] who was a former chief medical officer in the United

10 Kingdom, who visited Sarajevo during this period. I am aware of more

11 anecdotal literature. And I have spoken to people who have worked there.

12 But what I cited here is some material where there is some numerical

13 description or quantification. I think that is of more relevance to the

14 Court.

15 But there is other material describing experiences in Sarajevo.

16 Q. Dr. Turner, you told us that Dr. Jones worked in Sarajevo. Could

17 you tell us whether you are aware when she worked in Sarajevo, and for how

18 long did she stay and work in Sarajevo?

19 A. I can't answer that question, I am afraid.

20 Q. When you say you can't answer that question, does that mean that

21 you don't know when she worked in Sarajevo?

22 A. I can't give you the date of her working from when to when in

23 Sarajevo, no.

24 Q. Mr. Turner, you have just told us that Dr. Aitcheson [phoen] also

25 lived in Sarajevo, stayed in Sarajevo, and that you used his findings as

1 well in connection with the victims. Could you tell us when he went to

2 Sarajevo, for what period and what data, which data did you use from Dr.

3 Aitcheson's [phoen] report or findings?

4 A. It is Dr. Aitcheson [phoen]. Dr. Aitcheson [phoen] was in

5 Bosnia -- again, I can't give you exact dates, I'm afraid, but roughly

6 1992 and 1993. And I think that what he provides is not data, but another

7 description and it is that to which I am referring in paragraph 10. I am

8 talking about literature with similar descriptions.

9 He gives descriptions of escorting a food convoy and coming under

10 gunfire. He gives descriptions of trying to organise medical relief

11 through WHO. He gives descriptions of some of his experiences and

12 impressions in Sarajevo. But his report is a more impressionistic

13 descriptive paper, without the benefit of the numbers that come through in

14 Dr. Jones report. But I could have cited Dr. Aitcheson [phoen]. I don't

15 regard those reports as being in conflict.

16 Q. Mr. Turner, under item 10, when you say in line 2, example, in one

17 report of the medical services in Sarajevo during the siege undertaken in

18 May 1993, it was stated that the daily bombardment and sniper fire

19 directed at civilians had caused a steady stream of casualties.

20 Mr. Turner, were you able to see that medical report which you are

21 referring to?

22 A. I have seen that report, yes.

23 Q. So the report that you tell us that you had seen, could you tell

24 us whether it, that report was an integral part of Dr. Jones' letter? If

25 not, could you tell us that the medical report was enclosed by you, along

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 with your expertise? In other words, could you give us some more

2 information about the medical report you are referring to?

3 A. This is not the same as Dr. Jones' letter. And again, if I can

4 draw the attention to the Court to the reference list at the end. This is

5 a separate paper published in a different journal, Prehospital and

6 Disaster Medicine by Pretto et al. This report, I have read and it is

7 another report which included numbers dealing with the casualties in

8 Sarajevo. The report was undertaken in May 1993 and it reported some of

9 the data from Sarajevo. I presume that data came from official sources.

10 Without going back and checking the report again, I can't give a precise

11 answer to that. But the way the report was set out, it included details

12 on each of the surgical units in Sarajevo with numbers of people

13 presenting and the operation rates and so on.

14 So, it was a very detailed assessment particularly of a particular

15 month, which was November 1992, but it wasn't restricted to that month.

16 Q. Mr. Turner, if I understood you correctly, you didn't look at the

17 medical report, but that you used an article which you invoked, an article

18 by Mr. Begovic, Pretto and his associates in 1994?

19 A. The report is a report in a journal, that is the nature of a

20 medical report. It is published in a journal and it is open for all to

21 look at and all to challenge. I have looked at that report. I have read

22 it in detail. The first author of that report was Pretto. Co-authors

23 included Begovic.

24 Q. Mr. Turner, when you used that report, does that mean that you

25 used data from that report but you did not verify whether the reports were

1 true or not, when you were writing your own report?

2 A. I think there is a misunderstanding here and it might be helpful

3 to try to clarify.

4 When a paper is submitted to a journal like the British Medical

5 Journal or another journal for publication, the paper is looked at

6 carefully to see if it is a paper that that journal feels is accurate and

7 helpful, see if it meets certain scientific criteria and so on. So the

8 journal carries a responsibility to make sure that it is not publishing

9 material which is misleading or incorrect.

10 Having published the journal -- the article in the journal, if the

11 journal discovers that it has inadvertently published something which may

12 be misleading or incorrect, the journal has a clear obligation to correct

13 itself. Therefore, this is material which, in medical practice, it is

14 normal to quote.

15 Q. Mr. Turner, by using this medical journal, did you have an

16 opportunity to contact the people who compiled this report, medical

17 report, so-called, in order to check the accuracy of the data that was

18 included in their report, or the article that was published as a medical

19 report?

20 A. As I have already explained, that responsibility and that

21 discussion takes place between the journal editor and the reviewers that

22 the editor calls in to help and the authors of the paper. Once it is

23 published in the scientific literature, then normal practice is that the

24 article would then be quoted. Indeed, it is hard to see how someone like

25 myself could now go back and try and check whether this material was

1 accurate. I presume that this is -- this is the discussion that happened

2 at the time of publication. It is not something which would be easy to do

3 now.

4 Q. Mr. Turner, when you prepared your report, so you used the

5 literature that you quoted, that you referred to, that you gave a list of

6 together with your report, specifically speaking, when we are talking

7 about the data of the victims published in the medical journal that you

8 used and that you quoted, do you have an opportunity when you were

9 preparing your expert report, did you have an opportunity to also acquaint

10 yourself with other reports, in relation to the number of victims the

11 victims of the war in Sarajevo?

12 A. As I said, the method that I used was to look at the material that

13 I knew. But to go back and to do a computerized search of a compilation

14 database, to see if there was material I hadn't been familiar with, I have

15 done that and I have cited material which seemed relevant. If there had

16 been material, which I came across, which gave a different picture, then

17 that material would also have been quoted.

18 Q. When we are talking about data, the numbers of victims for the

19 relevant period in Sarajevo, that is, 1992 to 1994 could you tell us what

20 other sources of data did you use when we are talking about the numbers of

21 victims?

22 A. The material that I have -- was interested in looking at the

23 numbers of victims, I quoted. It wasn't -- this was not a primary purpose

24 of my report though. And again it seems that this is a substance of the

25 court to determine whether these incidents did take place and whether the

1 shooting and the injuries did happen. It is published in the medical

2 literature. The Court may wish to listen to that or it may not wish to

3 listen to that. I was more interested, in preparing this report, in some

4 of the ways that people reacted to some of those experience.

5 Q. When you say that you wanted to check the way that the people

6 reacted to some of these experiences, are you saying, when you say,

7 "people," do you mean persons like Dr. Jones, who wrote a report about

8 the situation in the hospitals in Sarajevo, and other persons who followed

9 the situation of people during that period? So, not you personally.

10 A. I was instructed that this case is to do with the reaction and the

11 experience of civilians in Sarajevo during this particular period, and

12 that the particular issue is whether those civilians may or may not have

13 been terrorised during this particular period. That was the issue that I

14 chose, on the basis of instruction, to try to focus on.

15 Q. So, what you are saying is that your instructions, your task, was

16 to study whether the civilians in Sarajevo were terrorised. In your

17 report in item 4 of your report, you gave a definition of a terrorist.

18 Could you briefly explain the importance of the terms, "terror",

19 "terrorism", "terrorise" and "terrorist"?

20 A. I think the importance of these terms is to do with legal

21 application and I don't think I am best qualified to comment on that side.

22 But what I quoted here was from a standard dictionary in the United

23 Kingdom. It is a reputable source. Some simple definitions of these

24 words which I thought were helpful in going through this issue. So I

25 defined -- the dictionary defines terror as a state of extreme fear. It

1 defines a terrorist as one who favours or uses terror inspiring methods of

2 governing or of coercing either government or community and to terrorise

3 is to fill with terror or to coerce by terrorism.

4 Q. Mr. Turner, do you believe that the operation of the Bosnian Serb

5 forces under General Galic, in the time relevant for the indictment in its

6 primary aim, was it a terrorist one? Was it with an objective of

7 terrorising the population?

8 A. Again, I think that is a matter for the Court. What I tried to do

9 is to say, if these facts were accepted by the Court, what would the

10 implications be. I don't think it is for me to determine that answer, but

11 that is clearly a crucial question for the Court to determine.

12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has

13 finished this part of the cross-examination. My colleague will continue.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Pilipovic.

15 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. So

17 that we are in check with the hours, could you tell us when is the next

18 break, please?

19 JUDGE ORIE: The next break will be at a quarter to 4.00. So that

20 is approximately 20 minutes from now.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

22 Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:

23 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Doctor?

24 A. Good afternoon.

25 Q. I am going to go back to the methodology that you used. We saw in

1 your report that you quoted, in places, some of the transcripts and the

2 first question will be the following: Did you have access to all of the

3 transcripts in relation to this case?

4 A. In paragraph 2, if I can draw your attention to paragraph 2 of my

5 report, I set out the source material and make it quite plain that I have

6 had access to extracts, both of the trial brief and that I had originally

7 been provided with extracts from witness statements.

8 Q. That is exactly the reason -- that is the reason why I am asking

9 you this question, sir. You said you had access to pieces, assorted

10 pieces in some way. But were you able to have access to the res?

11 A. I have not had access to the rest. And --

12 Q. Very well. Thank you.

13 A. -- Attention to that in paragraph 2, so that the report is not

14 misleading to the Court in any way.

15 Q. Doctor, this is not a criticism on my part. We are just trying to

16 establish what is what.

17 Now, Doctor, were there cases, for instance, whereby - and I hope

18 you will be able to answer by a yes or no - the Prosecution may have given

19 you excerpts that would have established for instance, that the Muslim

20 forces were firing on their own citizens in order to create losses; yes or

21 no?

22 A. The material that I -- I am not going to answer it yes or no, if I

23 can. The material that I was given initially was to do with extracts from

24 witness statements. My understanding is that those extracts were sourced

25 on the basis of reference to a psychological reaction. Now --

1 Q. Now, Doctor, I am going to have to interrupt you. I am so sorry.

2 But the question was very clear.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I think, Dr. Turner, whether you do it in a yes or

4 no, but that you could answer the question --

5 THE WITNESS: I was trying.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 THE WITNESS: I am sorry. What I was going to say is that I can't

8 recall whether that material included evidence of one sort or another in

9 that way. I have to say that I can't recall being provided with evidence

10 to do with actions by the Muslim authorities of that sort.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Very well. Thank you, Doctor.

13 Now, did you ever have in your hands testimonies, according to

14 which you would have -- the testimonies which would have said that Muslim

15 forces were firing on their own funeral precession?

16 A. I don't recall seeing such testimony.

17 Q. Doctor, were you given any testimonies or statements of, for

18 instance, of high representatives of the UN forces in Bosnia, and the

19 testimonies would say that the Muslim forces were either exploiting human

20 misery or were manipulating the media and that they were using this as a

21 weapon of war?

22 A. I don't recall seeing such testimony.

23 Q. Doctor, when you say that you do not recall, does this mean

24 clearly that you were never given these elements?

25 A. I have already said that I had been given little extracts from a

1 number of witness statements. So whether they include or didn't include,

2 I can't give a dogmatic answer to, but I don't recall seeing it.

3 Therefore, my assumption was I wasn't provided with --

4 Q. Doctor, Doctor, you have a very good memory, no doubt. Am I to

5 interpret your answer as being the fact that you were never given such

6 elements? Yes or no.

7 A. I have answered that. I can't recall being given such elements.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the last part of the previous

9 answer was that it was the assumption of the witness, since he has no

10 recollection of having seen such information, that he has not been

11 provided with it.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, that is true. Thank you

13 very much. Thank you.

14 Q. Doctor, did you yourself ever take an initiative to be able to

15 have access to other sources of information rather than only the ones that

16 you were provided by?

17 A. The bulk of my report is to do with emotional reactions to a

18 particular situation. I have taken initiative to look at the published

19 literature on that subject. The facts of the matter in terms of what

20 happened are a backdrop, that is for the Court to determine, not for an

21 expert.

22 Q. Doctor, I am going to have to interrupt you again. I am sorry.

23 Doctor, is it true that you accepted selected excerpts that were given to

24 you by the Prosecution; yes or no?

25 A. Mr. President, I am not sure why I have to keep on being

1 interrupted. I am trying to answer these questions.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Stuart, we have a problem in this court and that

3 is time. So, therefore, Mr. Piletta-Zanin knows exactly if he uses too

4 much time, that he might be stopped from further asking questions.

5 Therefore, if your answers are not, at least at first, I shouldn't say

6 aside, but at first hearing, not go in the direction of the question, Mr.

7 Piletta-Zanin tries to bring you back to the question.

8 If, however, there is any specific aspect you say, "my answer is

9 not well understandable unless I give a certain explanation," please ask

10 permission to do so. I am certain that you will get an opportunity. The

11 main question of Mr. Piletta-Zanin is: Is your report based on material

12 that was exclusively selected by the Prosecution, as a matter of facts, or

13 whether any -- did you ask for anything extra, did you feel unhappy with

14 being provided with the selection you had no control over, that is, I

15 think, the main issue, Mr. Piletta-Zanin is asking you.

16 But, before answering that question could I ask you, approximately

17 how many pages, let's say, of excerpts you received? Was that 50 or 100

18 or 500 or 1.000? Just approximately?

19 THE WITNESS: The excerpts were about four lines each, five lines

20 each and probably 20 or 30 pages.

21 JUDGE ORIE: So taken out of a -- of a witness testimony --

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, witness statements.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you say statements. You say you start would the

24 statements and then you went on with the testimony of the witness in

25 court. And I have seen several quotes of what witnesses have said in

1 court.

2 THE WITNESS: Material provided here was material provided rather

3 later. And the great majority of the material I have been provided with

4 is included here. So there wasn't a great deal more than you can see

5 here.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 Q. So, but I just wanted you to answer my question, Doctor, please.

9 Did you yourself ask for a possibility to have access to a deeper source,

10 to a more extensive source, of documents?

11 A. I did discuss that, yes. I am told that the deeper source is

12 enormous and there were some practical issues about being able to make

13 meaningful use of that. I am also aware that the deeper sources are to do

14 with the facts, rather than with the psychiatric implications. So I

15 didn't feel particularly troubled by that.

16 Q. Doctor what do you know about it, if you haven't seen it? Doctor,

17 what do you know about it, if you haven't seen these?

18 MR. IERACE: Mr. President at least as translated, that question

19 doesn't seem to make such sense. The witness has explained that he was

20 told that the -- there was an enormous quantity of material and that

21 raised a practical issue, in terms of him being able to meaningfully use

22 it. The question as interpreted, "Doctor what do you know about it, if

23 you haven't seen it?"

24 JUDGE ORIE: I think the question was whether the witness knew

25 about the deeper sources having to do with the facts, rather than with the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 psychiatric implications. I think the question is related to that. The

2 witness also said that the deeper sources are to do with the facts rather

3 than the psychiatric implications. So I do understand the question as

4 such, as Mr. Piletta-Zanin wants to know how the witness could be aware of

5 that without ever having seen the, well, the statements as a whole or the

6 material as a whole. I think that is what the question was about. I

7 don't know whether you understood it that way and you maintain your

8 objection, Mr. Ierace?

9 MR. IERACE: Well, Mr. President, it just doesn't seem to be going

10 to any sensible issue. It seems fundamentally the issue is whether Mr.

11 Turner should have been given the entire transcript or not. And if not --

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, that is not the issue.

13 That is not the purpose of this question.

14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... Understand and

15 express what Mr. Piletta-Zanin has in mind.

16 The witness has told us that he was not much troubled by not

17 having seen all the material because he was aware of, apart from the

18 practical effects, also he was aware that, well, let's say, the bulk would

19 have to be with the facts rather than the psychiatric aspects of it. And

20 the question of Mr. Piletta-Zanin is, how the witness knows that the bulk

21 of the material would deal with the facts. So to put it rather bluntly,,

22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you would like to know how Dr. Turner knows that not

23 most of the material was not about the facts, but about the psychiatric

24 impacts.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. That was perfectly

1 clear.

2 Q. Could you please answer my question, Doctor?

3 A. My assumption is that most of the material would be about facts

4 and I draw attention to the difference which is pointed out in paragraph 9

5 of my report about facts and the implications of those fact.

6 Q. Doctor, I don't have an impression that you answered my question.

7 You -- what I asked was: How did you know it? Am I to understand from

8 your answer that this was purely hypothetical on your part, that aside

9 from some excerpts that you received. The rest made no difference for

10 your expert report. Is that what it is?

11 A. I have said. In answer to your question, that I made an

12 assumption, and I tried to make that assumption clear in the body of my

13 report and in evidence today. I think what I tried to do in my report is

14 to draw a distinction between the facts which are to do with the Court in

15 its determination and if those facts were broadly set out, what would the

16 implications have been, based on international literature.

17 Q. Professor, I believe that my question still has not been answered.

18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... Interrupt you.

19 Is it your point that, by accepting selected materials, materials selected

20 by the Prosecutor's office, Dr. Turner might have missed relevant

21 information or is it the point that the vast majority of the material in

22 the hands of the Prosecutor is directly relevant for the psychiatric

23 aspects of the case? I mean, we are talking about facts. That means, who

24 was the mayor, when was he mayor, where do you live, when were you born.

25 Is it -- make your point and it is quite clear that if you have not seen

1 all the material, you cannot, on the basis of knowledge of all

2 the material, say anything about what is relevant and not. The witness

3 has testified already that it was an assumption. And I think the -- but,

4 if I am not correct please correct me -- it seems that it is your point

5 already for some 10 or 15 minutes that the selection of the material might

6 have influenced the report of the expert witness.

7 If that is your point, it is --

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my point is the

9 following: Unfortunately, I am not a psychiatric expert, but let me

10 please finish. But I am certain that there are elements that are escaping

11 us on the side of the Defence, us poor lawyers, but perhaps a psychiatric

12 expert by seeing them could perhaps deduce more important things.

13 However, since he did not have these elements, therefore, the entire

14 structure falls down. That is the point that we are developing here. But

15 I am going to go on to another line of questioning. Thank you.

16 Q. Doctor, you gave a definition of terror here. Is that correct?

17 A. I have already said I gave a definition of terror.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 You used a terror campaign, that is what -- these are the terms

20 that you used. Is that correct?

21 A. No.

22 Q. You used it in item 7 of your report. Please go to it. I will

23 read it if I need to.

24 A. I am referring there not to a definition of terror, but I am

25 referring to the indictment which refers to a campaign of shelling and

1 sniping.

2 Q. Very well. Doctor, am I to conclude, therefore, that you espouse

3 this thesis of the Prosecution?

4 A. [No audible response]

5 Q. Very well. Doctor, you used the term "campaign." Is that

6 correct?

7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... The witness

8 testified that what he does under paragraph 7, that's how it starts: "The

9 indictment refers to," and then I understand that not only the first

10 sentence, but also the second sentence of paragraph 7 is reflecting what

11 is in the indictment. That is what the testimony is.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Whether it is true or not, is a different matter.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed.

15 Q. Doctor, did you thought it was useful -- did you think it was

16 useful to give a definition or a clarification on what a campaign is?

17 A. No. I didn't give a definition of a campaign. That is not

18 something which I thought was to the heart of what I had been instructed

19 to do.

20 Q. Very well.

21 Doctor, would you agree with me to consider that the events in

22 Sarajevo are relevant both for a civilian civil war and also for an urban

23 war?

24 A. I am not quite sure what that means. I am sorry.

25 Q. Which one of the two propositions disturbs you? Is it perhaps

1 both?

2 A. I don't understand the sentence as is translated.

3 Q. Very well.

4 Doctor, would you agree with me, just before the break, to say

5 that the events in Sarajevo were relevant, were constituent parts of a

6 civil war and at the same time, of an urban war?

7 A. You are asking me to say whether I agree with facts of a case,

8 using what I presume to be legally defined terms. I think I would like

9 clarification on that before I could answer. I am not sure that this is

10 material, as an expert psychiatrist, that goes to my evidence.

11 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, and beyond that, I think it has been

12 made abundantly clear that the witness has had made available to him

13 aspects of the evidence, not the entire evidence, and, therefore, the

14 question as presently phrased would seem to be based on an inappropriate

15 presumption. There is no suggestion that he has had access to sufficient

16 material to comment on that.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and apart from that, the witness, Mr.

18 Piletta-Zanin, is saying that it is not within his expertise to agree upon

19 the events to have been part of both a civil war and an urban war.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed, Mr. President, but

21 however he could, if --

22 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has said that it is not within his

23 expertise. So I don't think we should force him to given an answer of

24 something he says he doesn't know about.

25 Please proceed.

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. But it seems it is

2 time for the break.

3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... Adjourn until 20

4 minutes pas 4.00.

5 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, I see that you are on your feet.

8 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wished to indicate

9 that given the estimate by the Defence, it seems that we will finish today

10 well short of 7.00. With your leave, Mr. President, I don't seek to call

11 the next witness today. There are some particular measures which would

12 make it appropriate, I think, for him to be called tomorrow, if that is

13 acceptable to you, Mr. President and Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I think that that would be a practical solution, yes.

15 So let's first see at what time we do stop and how much time we still have

16 left.

17 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr.

19 President.

20 Q. Witness, my question which I would like to ask again is the

21 following: Were you -- did you try to find out if the conditions of a

22 so-called terror are different in an urban environment, and in at times of

23 civil war, than in an extra-urban area and under different circumstances

24 of a civil war?

25 A. What I have tried to set out are factors likely to increase the

1 feeling of terror. Some of those may go to this question.

2 Q. We will come to that in a minute. Thank you.

3 Doctor you have told us in your document that you referred to

4 various historical situations. You refer to the Holocaust and to the

5 situation in Cambodia, in 3132. Would you consider that those two

6 aspects, those two historical facts, were also part of a terror campaign?

7 A. I can give a personal answer to that, but it seems to me that that

8 is what, if I understand my instruction correctly, that is the definition

9 that Court has to achieve. And I am not sure whether I should go further

10 on that.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Do we have --

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me first see in what way exactly you used

14 the -- that was -- could you give us the number --

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] 3132.

16 JUDGE ORIE: You are writing about --

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And 35, as far as the

18 Holocaust is concerned.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you referred to publications about Cambodia and

20 about the Holocaust. Of course, I do not know exactly what is in these

21 publications, apart from the way you dealt with it. If you feel that, on

22 the basis of your personal knowledge of these situations, or on the basis

23 of your expertise, whether or not based on these publications you could

24 answer the question, I invite you to do so. If you say it is just a

25 personal impression of what I got from the newspapers, then, please tell

1 us, because then under these circumstances, your expertise does not make

2 it possible for you to answer that question, and we would rather not have

3 any guesses as answers to questions, but rather either personal knowledge

4 or the result of you expertise.

5 THE WITNESS: Thank you. From what I know of the literature in

6 Cambodia, for example, there was wide-scale, systematic persecution of

7 people for example, people wearing spectacles because they were deemed to

8 have a level of education. The persecution and the mass killing that I

9 know from the literature took place there, I would regard as consistent

10 with terrorisation of the community. Similarly for those involved in the

11 Holocaust, where there was again mass killing and persecution of people, I

12 personally would see that as another act consistent with terrorism.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Thank you for your answer, Doctor.

15 Doctor, in the same vein, is -- was the bombing and the killing of

16 civilians in Nagasaki is also considered a campaign of terror.

17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I object to the question on the basis

18 of relevance.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think it is, I think that

21 history should examine those files in the same case as others. And if

22 every time the Defence wishes to ask a question about a victor's camp,

23 well, I think that the dice have been cast.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE ORIE: It is not on the basis of a lack of relevance at this

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 very moment, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that the Chamber would sustain the

2 objection. On the other hand, you are asking about a campaign of terror.

3 I again would like to stress that if the witness knows anything about it,

4 and perhaps we should not go through the whole history and all bad

5 situations, but if you know anything specific or if your expertise could

6 tell us something about Hiroshima, but Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I already tell

7 you that we are not going through a 1000 years back, but Hiroshima f you

8 could tell us something about it. And then not specifically whether it

9 was a campaign of terror. You may say whether you consider it to be

10 terror or not, but the specific words of this indictment are mainly for

11 the Chamber to decide whether it was a campaign of terror or not. But if

12 your expertise could tell us something about it, please answer the

13 question.

14 THE WITNESS: I think what I -- with your permission, would like

15 to do, is to try to draw out some of the differences that may exist, where

16 I think I can comment. I don't think I can give personal, professional,

17 scientific answer to that question.

18 I think that some of the differences that may exist between on the

19 one hand the Holocaust and the persecution of the Jews and others, on the

20 one hand, or Cambodia on the one hand, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the

21 other hand. Well, I think that there is a difference of persistence. The

22 one -- on the one hand we have events that took place over a prolonged

23 period of time. We have events in which there was the common perception

24 that there was a malicious deliberate persecution of people as people,

25 rather than as occupants of a town at war.

1 So I think that, if I can answer that as best I can, I would say

2 that there were differences between those two sorts of experience which I

3 can comment on. On the other hand I would say it seems likely to me, I

4 can't quote literature because the literature following Hiroshima and

5 Nagasaki has tended to focus much more on physical reactions, but it

6 seems likely to me that those experiences would have been intensely

7 frightening. As I say, the difference would have been perhaps the

8 perception and the persistence, and those are psychological concepts which

9 I try to draw out in the body of my report.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for your clarification.

11 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, now it is

13 clear.

14 Page 39, line 2, it was stated in the text and not in the

15 transcript. So what I said was a victor's camp and not a camp. Now I

16 shall continue.

17 THE WITNESS: I don't understand that. Is that something that I

18 need to know?

19 JUDGE ORIE: No. It is just that part of the French text spoken

20 by Mr. Piletta-Zanin was not properly brought into the transcript in

21 English.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Doctor, when you refer to historic situations, could you tell me,

24 because you referred to the Holocaust period, whether you know what the

25 Stukas [phoen] were?

1 A. I don't know what the Stukas [phoen] were.

2 Q. May I help you. Do you know whether the Stukas [phoen] were a

3 weapon, that is a fighter plane, as far as I know, it is a plane that

4 bombs and the military authorities had added to the cockpit of the pilot a

5 siren to create a noise aimed at alarming the population. Do you remember

6 that?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. Very well.

9 Is it true, as far as you know -- I withdraw that. I would like

10 to rephrase the question.

11 Were you told, yes or no, that the Serb forces would -- was

12 theoretically possible would have modified the mortars in order not to

13 make mortars noisy, so as to alarm the population?

14 A. I don't recall being told as a fact that mortars were modified, if

15 I understand this, to make this less noisy. No, I don't recall being told

16 that. I don't believe I was told that.

17 Q. Not less noisy, more noisy.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you please look

19 at the English translation in the transcript, because I think it does not

20 appear as you intended it.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Quite possible, but it is

22 difficult to see in English it says -- "make mortar noisy.

23 JUDGE ORIE: You were told in order "not to make mortars noisy"

24 when I did understand it well the question was whether the witness was

25 told that the mortars were made noisy in order to alert the people of

1 their possible arrival.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In fact, to terrorise them.

3 Q. You were not informed of that.

4 JUDGE ORIE: You were not informed of that.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Witness?

7 A. I am sorry. Just wait for a minute, please.

8 Q. It is not in your notes.

9 A. In that case, I wasn't told that.

10 Q. Thank you very much.

11 Witness, now I would like to come back to a more sensitive issue,

12 that of imagination. Could one say that, as a rule, man can fear more

13 that which he does not know, that is, what he imagines, for the simple

14 reason because he will attribute to the fears a greater proportion than

15 would have been the case if he were able to see the object of his fear? I

16 expect that you have understood my question.

17 A. There are different elements to the question. I think the

18 evidence is that man will fear an event which is unpredictable. In that

19 sense an event which he does not know, I don't think that the evidence is

20 that a man will fear an event which is in imagination, more than an event

21 in reality. In fact, I think the evidence would be to the contrary.

22 Q. Very well, Doctor.

23 Now, I would like to quote the following example. If I take the

24 noise of a shelling exploding, is it not true, and I think that is what

25 you told us, that I -- is it not correct that my fear, my anxiety and then

1 my fear, would be much greater as long as I had not seen the damage caused

2 by such an explosion and I wouldn't have been able to see whether my

3 people close to me were in a secure situation or were affected by the

4 explosion?

5 A. Again, it is a complex question. It seems to have a number of

6 elements it. If there was a shelling which I think may have affected my

7 family, and that is described in my report, in one of the snapshot pieces,

8 the lack of knowledge about whether my family had been affected is likely

9 to be a very frightening, very worrying experience. If, on the other

10 hand, the question is that would the reality of a shelling be more or less

11 frightening, then the imagination of a shelling, than the reality would be

12 more frightening, in general.

13 Q. Very well.

14 But is it not true that man is relieved, consequently, if he can

15 see the reality of the explosion of a shell and that his family had not

16 been affected?

17 A. It is like saying, if I go to a sale and make a bargain. The

18 shelling isn't likely to be associated with relief. It is a question of

19 how bad it is. If, at the time of a shelling, someone has an overriding

20 worry about the welfare of their family, then it might be less bad once

21 they realise their family is safe. But I don't think we can say that that

22 is a factor of relief, in any way that I would understand that.

23 Q. Very well.

24 Doctor --

25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the General and I

1 cannot hear the translation on channel 6. Not following the channel --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Is it solved?

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is already for the French

4 booth, for the English booth.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it has been solved.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is all right now.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Could you please repeat what you have just said so as to have the

10 translation in Serbian, please.

11 A. How far back?

12 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps from "if at the time of a shelling.

13 THE WITNESS: If, at the time of a shelling, someone has an

14 overriding worry about the welfare of their family, then it might be less

15 bad once they realise their family is safe. But I don't think that we can

16 say that that is a factor of relief in any way that I would understand

17 that. It is a question of being less bad.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Thank you. Thank you.

20 Witness, when you carried out your expertise, did you look at a

21 map?

22 A. Probably. I do have a map of the Balkans on my office wall at the

23 moment.

24 Q. Very well.

25 Map of the Balkans that is rather broad. A map of Sarajevo?

1 A. No, I did not look at a map of Sarajevo.

2 Q. Witness, do you know what the hearing range of a shell of 60, 82

3 and 102 -- 120 millimetres?

4 A. Mr. President, I am a psychiatrist, so the answer --

5 JUDGE ORIE: So the answer is no. Yes, that is quite clear.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Very well. I know the witness is an expert in psychiatric and I

8 am asking him this question for a specific reason. Do you know, in terms

9 of distance, what the breadth of the city of Sarajevo is?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Witness, can you rule out, in front of this court, that when the

12 firing, when the shots of mortars reached the lines of separation or

13 confrontation, these shots could not have been heard inside the city and,

14 therefore create a stress?

15 A. I can make no comment on that.

16 Q. But I would like you to do so. If you don't know about it, then

17 can you please tell us that you don't know?

18 A. I don't know. I am a psychiatrist.

19 Q. Yes, I understand that you are a psychiatrist, Doctor, but you did

20 not examine in your report, expert report, the range, the so-called in

21 some way collateral range of the effect of firing of mortar firing on the,

22 strictly speaking, peripheral military targets?

23 A. I don't understand what peripheral military targets are. I just

24 want to repeat the answer I have already given, which is no.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I think what Mr. Piletta-Zanin would like to know

1 from you is that the sound of shelling with a purely military character,

2 that means directed against people at the front line, whether you took

3 into consideration that the sound of the shelling might have contributed

4 to the feelings of the civilian population, therefore, not directly

5 attacked by the shelling but nevertheless being confronted with it. That

6 is, I think, what Mr. Piletta-Zanin --

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, on the level of the

8 noise, Mr. President.

9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... The sound.

10 THE WITNESS: What I have said is that in time of war, civilians

11 caught up in warfare, in paragraph 31, perhaps because they live close to

12 a military target, will be affected by this experience. However, where

13 there is systematic targeting or whether it is over and above that, for

14 example, where they may be seen as a malicious and horrifying act, it is

15 more likely to cause a more marked fear reaction. Now, I can't say where

16 the threshold is. I believe that is a matter for the Court. What I can

17 say is that the closer you get to one end of the scale, the more likely it

18 is that there will be extreme fear or terror.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Very well.

22 But, Witness, very briefly, it is true that in your report, expert

23 report, you did not take into consideration this particular aspect, that

24 is, on the issue of the perimetric, quote unquote, that is, of the

25 trenches and of the lines of separation?

1 A. That is true.

2 Q. Thank you, Witness.

3 At a given point you spoke of hospitals. Do you know in your

4 capacity as a psychiatrist, do you know for a city of 350.000 inhabitants,

5 do you know what were the daily entries in hospitals in times of peace, in

6 terms of when accidents happened, what were the entries in hospitals,

7 admissions to hospitals?

8 A. Again, there are two elements to that, I think. One is a

9 normative question; what would be the normal expected rate. That simply

10 doesn't exist. I mean, there are wide variations in normative rates from

11 country to country and I am being asked as a psychiatrist, I think here,

12 not about psychiatric admissions but about surgical admissions.

13 Q. Witness, I have to interrupt you. If you don't know it, then

14 please say that you don't know it, for reasons of time.

15 A. The second point of the question is what were the rates in

16 Sarajevo and I don't know that. The second part is there isn't a

17 normative figure.

18 Q. I maintain to say that I never spoke of Sarajevo in my question.

19 A. That is why I was trying to answer what seemed to be a question --

20 I am sorry I would --

21 Q. Thank you very much, but I would like you to wait for my question.

22 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has testified from country to country

23 that there were wide varieties and if he says something about what he

24 doesn't know or what he doesn't know, then he says: "As far as Sarajevo

25 is concerned, I don't know." That means Sarajevo would be different

1 perhaps than what happens in England or in the United States. So I don't

2 think that it is a mere fact that you didn't mention Sarajevo in your

3 question makes it illogical to refer to Sarajevo.

4 Please proceed.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

6 Q. Now, Witness, do you know how many hospitals there were in

7 Sarajevo?

8 A. I don't. I have read literature, for example, the paper by Pretto

9 which describes surgical hospitals, but I can't tell you a number.

10 Q. Very well.

11 Witness, does the figure of admissions in terms of accidents,

12 admissions for accidents in the time of war in hospitals in Sarajevo, does

13 the figure of under one for a thousand, out of a thousand, less than one,

14 would this figure seem to you very high considering that we are talking

15 about civilians and military personnel together?

16 A. I -- what I do know is that at time of war, there is an increased

17 rate of accident. I know that because that applies to British troops

18 stationed in war or peace-keeping zones. And I know that because I know

19 the psychological injuries which follow. I can't comment on the surgical

20 accident rate in Sarajevo.

21 JUDGE ORIE: So whether the numbers mentioned by Mr. Piletta-Zanin

22 are relatively high or low --

23 A. I can't comment.

24 JUDGE ORIE: You can't comment.

25 THE WITNESS: That would require a surgeon, I believe, to give

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 expert testimony.

2 JUDGE ORIE: You say it is beyond you expertise.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 Q. Sir, you said, within the framework of your expertise, that the

6 question of shortage of gas, water, electricity that this was something

7 that could be part of this campaign, this is the term that you used, that

8 is part of this campaign of terror. Do you remember this?

9 A. Would you draw me to the paragraph where I say that, because I

10 don't think I did say it in that way.

11 Q. That could be a problem of interpretation, but I think you said

12 it, on one hand, in item 6, line 2 and also in your conclusions at the

13 end, in your findings in the end of your paper, of your document. You

14 said it somewhere that it was in the middle of the conclusion under 41. I

15 think here "it is quite obvious that if there was a disruptions in supply

16 of food and water..." Do you remember that?

17 A. Yes. Thank you. What -- maybe it is the interpretation, but the

18 question that I have is within the framework of my expertise, the question

19 of shortage of gas, water and electricity were something that could be

20 part of this campaign, this campaign of terror.

21 What is set out in paragraph 41 is really a summary of what I

22 would do or, if I thought someone had a primary purpose of inducing

23 terror, what they might do, on the basis of psychological evidence. I am

24 not inferring a fact. What I would do, or I think they would do, is they

25 would try to do a number of things, including disrupting supplies of food

1 and water and disrupting medical services. But that is a psychological

2 answer rather than a factual answer, if the Court understands the

3 difference.

4 Q. Sir, sir, if what you are saying, is it also valid for gas and

5 electricity? You are talking about supply of water. Is it the same

6 reasoning would then apply for gas and electricity, is that true?

7 A. What I have done in this report is essentially to try and draw out

8 those factors which are likely to increase the severity of emotional

9 impacts, factors likely to increase difficulty include concurrent

10 stressors, heat, noise, illness, fatigue, and so on. Disruption of gas

11 and electricity supplies are likely to have that sort of effect. It

12 doesn't mean that those factors are essential factors, but if it those

13 factors were involved then it would be likely to increase an effect on a

14 civilian population.

15 Q. Doctor, are you therefore saying that if someone, since you have

16 put it hypothetically, if someone had taken a decision to cut these

17 supplies or not authorise their supply, these people whoever they are,

18 would have then participated in a plan of terror, partially or fully?

19 A. Not necessarily. It may be that supplies are disrupted in warfare

20 for all sorts of reasons. But what I would say, if there was a primary

21 purpose of causing terror, then that would be something which would be an

22 act that someone might wish to follow.

23 JUDGE ORIE: You would say that it is quite useful asset to create

24 terror, if you want to create terror.

25 THE WITNESS: Yes. But I wouldn't -- but of course these supplies

1 in warfare may be cut off for other reasons and one can't infer a

2 motivation. But it would be a useful asset to follow, I agree entirely.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Sir, we are going on to another point. You mentioned on several

6 occasions and the item 15 of your document, you were talking about a

7 shelling of -- random shelling.

8 Where does this terminology come from, that is my first question,

9 random shelling?

10 A. It probably comes from me. I wrote this report. I think what I

11 am trying to draw out here is that actions likely to cause high arousal,

12 fatigue, sleeplessness, and therefore, my comment would be that random

13 shelling, it could have been excessive shelling or persistent shelling,

14 but random shelling also would be likely to cause people to be fatigued

15 and sleepless. That was trying to link to those two statements together.

16 Q. Very well. Thank you, Doctor.

17 Since you spoke of and you gave some examples of shellings or

18 firing, I would like us to give you here now, before this Chamber, one

19 example of a random shelling or two examples or three examples, could you

20 do that? Could you do that?

21 A. I think -- I suppose a simple answer is, if you want me to quote

22 facts to the Tribunal, the answer is probably no. But that wasn't what I

23 was trying to do when I wrote this section of my report. What I was

24 trying to do was to say to the Tribunal, if these facts as alleged are

25 found to be broadly true, and if there was disruption of people's ability

1 to sleep, state of illness, state of arousal, then that would be a factor

2 likely to cause an increase in fear and persistence of fear.

3 Q. Sir how could you know first of all, that there were -- there was

4 random shelling in Sarajevo, first question? Did you base yourself solely

5 on what the Prosecution told you?

6 A. No. There are descriptions of shelling in Sarajevo. Those

7 descriptions appear to be random. But I don't think that --

8 Q. Now, I am going to interrupt you. I am sorry. I apologise. I am

9 going to interrupt you.

10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... Let the witness

11 finish his answer.

12 Please proceed Mr. -- Yes. I am addressing you in the wrong way.

13 THE WITNESS: That is all right.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I should say please proceed, Dr. Turner.

15 THE WITNESS: That is fine. What I was going to say is: I don't

16 think that it is for me to say if there was random shelling in Sarajevo.

17 What I am saying here is that if there was random shelling in Sarajevo,

18 then this is the psychological impact that I would expect.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Very well.

22 Sir, you said and that is the reason why I wanted to interrupt

23 you, you said there were descriptions of shellings in Sarajevo. What are

24 these descriptions? Where did they come from? What are your sources?

25 Could you tell us?

1 A. I can't point you to -- I mean I have read descriptions of

2 shelling in a number of sources. For example, some of the material that I

3 have --

4 Q. No, I am going to have to stop you.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the witness is explaining to us

6 what his sources were. That is your question. "What are your sources,

7 could you tell us." So he is now explaining it to us.

8 Please proceed.

9 THE WITNESS: If you want me to try to give a quotation pointing

10 to those shellings being random, I can't. I can't recall such a

11 quotation. But I have read descriptions of shelling in Sarajevo. What I

12 was trying to do here is to say that if there were shelling which was

13 either random and therefore disruptive or which was in some way determined

14 to disrupt sleep or cause high arousal or illness, psychologically. So

15 psychological elements was what I was trying to focus on.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Thank you, Witness.

18 What are your sources, could you tell us?

19 A. I think I have already answered that question.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I think the witness has testified -- has answered the

21 question to the extent that he say he can't give a precise source of where

22 random shelling is part of it. But perhaps we could make a distinction,

23 would the sources comprise both the evidentiary material provided to you

24 by the Office of the Prosecutor and descriptions you found in literature?

25 THE WITNESS: Yes.

1 JUDGE ORIE: At least we have -- so two areas of source.

2 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.

4 Q. But, however, Witness, you cannot now quote one article, one piece

5 of work, one reference that would have described such alleged random

6 shelling?

7 A. I have already answered that question.

8 Q. Very well.

9 Sir, I am going to interpret that as having already answered that

10 question. Thank you.

11 Sir, do you know if, yes or no, in the city of Sarajevo there was

12 a high number of military target?

13 A. I don't know the number of military targets in Sarajevo. I find

14 it hard to comment on whether they were high or low. I presume there were

15 some.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Then would you please proceed to your next issue,

17 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.

19 Q. Were you informed of the existence of mobile military targets in

20 Sarajevo?

21 A. I believe that I was, yes.

22 Q. What were you told?

23 A. Simply that there were such targets. It was relevant in the

24 question of proportionality. But that is a legal question, not a

25 psychiatric one. But it was important that I understood that civilians

1 could be affected by shelling of military targets. I can't say that I

2 recall any more than that.

3 Q. Very well. Thank you for your answer.

4 Now I would like to go to the question of snipers. I believe that

5 I detected a contradiction in your report. You said that what would have

6 created terror is the fact that there was this unpredictability aspect; is

7 that correct?

8 A. Unpredictability is a factor that Rachman cites and others cite as

9 a factor likely to cause increased distress, yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask, "imprevisible" and "unpredictable,"

11 Unpredictable, whether that is exactly the same to me or not. The

12 translation was "unpredictable" and the question was "imprevisible".

13 Could you please be more specific.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] If the answer can be given by

15 me, then I believe that I can say that it is equivalent translation.

16 Q. However, sir, you, at some point, you tell us that point 17 of

17 your document, you quoted some of the statements that were given to you

18 and in which it is established that as a rule people knew where the

19 marksmen were firing from. This is page 6, first paragraph, of the

20 statement by Dr. Mandilovic. And the first sentence says the following, I

21 will quote in English. [In English] "You could know approximately where

22 sniper fire was coming from. And you would be able to project yourself,

23 to see that you were not out in an open space, facing the southern side."

24 [Interpretation] Isn't it true that this unpredictable character,

25 this feature, was specifically demonstrated by this quote which says that,

1 one, they knew where the firing was coming from; and two, that they knew,

2 they knew how to protect themselves and I am talking about the snipers?

3 A. I think the point of the quotation as far as I understand it and

4 the point that I thought I was trying to illustrate was to do with

5 shelling, that this particular witness was talking about their experience

6 of sniping and shelling and saying as far as I can see that the fact that

7 shelling by contrary, or by contrast that shelling is unpredictable made

8 it worse. So what he goes on to say is the projectiles of shells, you

9 can't save yourself from projectiles of shells because they come in in an

10 arch and they are dispersed and their destructive power is greater than a

11 gunshot. However, that was to apply that that was a worse experience and

12 I think that is illustrated the fact that Rachman was pointing to

13 intensity and unpredictability. This particular witness, I think, was

14 also commenting on their own experience of unpredictability and intensity.

15 But it's an illustration. Again, that's all I can make of it.

16 Q. Sir, I believe that you did not answer my question. Is it true,

17 according to this quote, that you yourself chose, this feature of

18 unpredictability and this ineluctable feature of sniper fire was not

19 illustrated by this quote, which actually says the opposite. "We know how

20 to protect ourselves, we know where it is coming from, we know how to

21 protect ourselves." Isn't that what it says here?

22 A. I think I did answer the question. This particular quotation does

23 illustrate a predictable feature of sniper fire, according to this

24 witness. What the witness seems to be saying, as far as I understand it,

25 this quotation, is that the greater distress was caused by the

1 unpredictable experience. That was the psychological element that I was

2 trying to go to. And I think that's my answer to that question.

3 JUDGE ORIE: In fact, the question is, Dr. Turner, but it is

4 perhaps not so easy to understand, the question is: Since Dr. Mandilovic

5 has described sniper situations as a relatively predictable and he is

6 describing a situation where you can at least protect yourself against it,

7 that sniping, as it happened on the basis of this description would not

8 have contributed to the terror. I think that is the basis of the

9 question.

10 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

11 I think that what I would say to that is -- I am sorry I am

12 answering the long answer again. But what I would say to that is no

13 single factor is likely to be -- to give an explanation for a state of

14 terror. Likely there are a number of factors. In this context, I am

15 looking at intensity and unpredictability as two factors. My presumption

16 is that if someone were to snipe at me and miss me very narrowly I would

17 find that a very frightening experience on the basis of intensity. If it

18 happened repeatedly, I would probably still find that a very frightening

19 experience on the basis of intensity. What wouldn't be there,

20 necessarily, on this statement would be unpredictability. But I wouldn't

21 say unpredictability was an essential criteria or indeed that any of these

22 was an essential criteria. The cumulative effect of a number of criteria

23 is likely to be relevant in gauging the degree terror produced by a set of

24 actions.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

2 Q. Sir, you mentioned in your report that an attack programme that

3 was repeated on a civilian population, carried out on a considerable scale

4 could produce this terror, could result in terror. Do you remember that?

5 A. Could you point me to the paragraph, please.

6 Q. I don't have it on top of my head, but I believe you would know?

7 A. I think the trouble is, it is a very --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please find the place, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am going to go to another

10 question, Mr. President.

11 Q. You mentioned, in paragraph 20, the fact that cultural images or

12 icons were also targeted and that this was characteristic of this

13 mechanism that we are talking about, this is mentioned in point 20. Have

14 you found it?

15 A. I have, yes.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 Were you ever told, Doctor, that in this hospital, on the top

18 floors of this hospital, there was a small group of people with weapons

19 led by a captain and that from that location they were carrying out

20 attacks.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

22 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. It is an interesting

23 proposition which unfortunately was not put to any of the three witnesses

24 who gave evidence that they either worked or lived in the State Hospital.

25 One of them indeed said that he lived in the top floors. For that reason,

1 that it hasn't been put, my respectful submission, it certainly couldn't

2 be put to this witness or implied to this witness that that is a piece of

3 information he should have been aware of. And in any event, because it

4 hasn't been put and should have been to the earlier witnesses, the Defence

5 should be stopped from putting their proposition. Thank you.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you indicate where we find a

7 source for this proposition?

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I cannot give it to you now in

9 order not to waste time, but I will do it later. But I will continue with

10 the same line of questioning.

11 Q. Sir, you said that the Kosevo hospital was deliberately targeted.

12 Is that correct?

13 A. No, that is not correct.

14 What I quote is the report in the medical literature, describing

15 the Kosevo hospital. I don't say that it was deliberately targeted.

16 Q. Wait a minute. You did not put in your report that you considered

17 that the Kosevo hospital was deliberately targeted?

18 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I would be grateful if my learned

19 colleague could, when he refers to the report, state the relevant

20 paragraph so that we can all see exactly what the words are.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please indicate what paragraph you are

22 referring to, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am going to find it, Mr.

24 President.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Turner, if you would remember where we find in

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the report what you just said there was, then you can perhaps assist us.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President --

3 THE WITNESS: I just found reference to the report by Jones, which

4 was paragraph 36, Mr. President.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Would that be the same source, Mr. Piletta-Zanin?

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed, Mr. President. I was

7 going to say this now.

8 Q. Sir, you wrote the following [In English]: "In Kosevo hospital in

9 Sarajevo, there was evidence of deliberate targeting."

10 A. Can you point me to the line, please.

11 Q. I will indeed give you the line. This is four, five, six, seven,

12 lines four, five, six, seven.

13 A. Yes, I found it.

14 Q. Very well.

15 Didn't you write that, and you signed this, that the Kosevo

16 hospital was deliberately targeted by fire?

17 A. No. What I am quoting is a report by Dr. Jones and I put this

18 particular phrase in quotations to make it absolutely plain it is a

19 quotation.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin --

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.

22 JUDGE ORIE: -- That was clear to everyone that the expert witness

23 in this report is describing here, not his own personal knowledge, but

24 that he is referring to the report of Dr. Jones. So what is the use of, I

25 would say, misquoting?

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I wasn't going

2 to misquote, but the witness incorporated this statement into his expert

3 report. Therefore, he made it his own, he is taking conclusions from it,

4 so he has made it his own.

5 Q. Were you never told sir, that as far as the Kosevo hospital is

6 concerned, there were acts of military provocation by other parties?

7 A. No, I don't recall being told that.

8 Q. Nobody ever told you that there was firing, there was shots that

9 came originated from the Kosevo hospital in the direction of other

10 parties?

11 A. No, I don't recall being told that.

12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.

14 MR. IERACE: The evidence has been consistent throughout that

15 shots fired -- the shots were fired from the grounds of Kosevo Hospital,

16 not from the buildings themselves.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that is the way I understood the question as

18 a matter of fact. But I think the witness has twice said that he was not

19 informed about it. So, please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.

21 Q. We are now coming to your conclusions soon, sir. Sir, you spoke

22 of random shelling by using, I believe the idea of frequency, is that

23 correct?

24 A. No. I commented in the paragraph that we were looking at before.

25 Let me see if I can find it again. It would be helpful to go back to.

1 MR. IERACE: Paragraph 15, I think.

2 THE WITNESS: Paragraph 15. What I was commenting on there, as a

3 matter of clarification to the Court, was that what I was interested in

4 were actions likely to cause high arousal, illness, fatigue or

5 sleeplessness, because I was citing those as factors illustrated by

6 Rachman in his important paper. Now random shelling would be a factor

7 which seems likely to me, if it existed, and I am not saying it did exist,

8 but if it existed, would be a factor likely to lead to sleeplessness and

9 fatigue. In illustrating that to the Court, I also said that frequent

10 shelling might have a similar effect. So either of those would be of

11 relevance. What I am interested in primarily is the psychological

12 construct which I am trying to illustrate.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Very well.

15 You used on page 58, line 3, to be accurate, the notion of

16 "intensity."

17 JUDGE ORIE: You cannot look back on the transcript. We can see,

18 we have laptops. It was -- I will read to you literally what is in the

19 transcript.

20 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I have got on line -- on page 58, line 3 and I

21 will read the whole: "In this context, I am looking at intensity and

22 unpredictability as two factors. My presumption is that if someone were

23 to snipe at me and miss me very narrowly, I would find that a very

24 frightening experience, on the basis of intensity."

25 So the word, "intensity" has been used in this context. Yes.

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

2 Q. Witness, you used the term, "intensity" regarding the sniping, but

3 I think that in regard to shelling, indiscriminate shelling, the criteria

4 would be the same; yes or no?

5 A. Both shelling and sniping can be associated with an intense trauma

6 experience, yes.

7 Q. Very well. Thank you for your answer.

8 Consequently, Witness, were you told, yes or no, from 1993, end of

9 1993, that the Serb side, not only sought to obtain a peace agreement, but

10 also to obtain the demilitarisation of Sarajevo; yes or no?

11 A. No, that hasn't been part of my instruction.

12 Q. Thank you very much.

13 Witness, is it true that a will, not only expressed in ceasefire,

14 in terms of ceasefire, but also in terms of demilitarisation and peace, is

15 necessarily contradictory - in contradiction - with the idea of shelling?

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President --

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [In English] Indiscriminate shelling.

19 MR. IERACE: -- I object to the question for a number of reasons.

20 Firstly, it is outside the expertise of the witness, I would suggest;

21 secondly, it presumes that the interest on the Serb side in negotiating

22 peace from 1993 is inconsistent with maintaining a shelling and sniping

23 campaign against Sarajevo and civilians, if the other side did not agree

24 to the peace. And that is a matter, firstly, of evidence and certainly

25 not a proposition which the Prosecution accepts the evidence establishes.

1 That being the case, the question lacks any probative value, as

2 well as being outside the expertise of the witness. Thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the objection is sustained, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

4 If you want to touch upon the issue, you should do it in a different way.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.

6 Q. Witness, I will rephrase the question.

7 Were you informed, Witness, of the number of daily shelling taking

8 place in Sarajevo in 1992?

9 A. I haven't been given the numbers of daily shelling in Sarajevo in

10 any of the relevant years.

11 Q. Thank you very much.

12 Witness, consequently you were not able to examine because you

13 were not provided this, possible drastic decrease in the number of

14 shelling between 1992 and 1994, for instance?

15 A. No, I wasn't. That is a matter of fact, which I haven't focused

16 on in this report.

17 Q. Very well.

18 Witness, the same question in relation to the decrease in the

19 number of wounded or deceased for 1993, compared to 1993 and then compared

20 to 1994?

21 A. I have access to some figures about the number of wounded and

22 deceased in the report for example by Pretto in the open literature. That

23 deals with a period covering part of 1992 and 1993.

24 Q. But this stopped here and you were not given other elements. So

25 1993, 1994.

1 A. I wasn't given any of those elements. I did a search of the

2 medical literature, in order to obtain my own information. That is where

3 the paper by Pretto came from. It wasn't given to me by anybody.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 Witness, consequently, not having been given those elements, you

6 were not able to do anything else but to make hypotheses; is that correct?

7 A. I don't think my paper is hypothetical. It draws out the

8 scientific literature in psychology and psychiatry and those conclusions I

9 don't think are hypothetical conclusions. Their relevance to Sarajevo is

10 pre-- is predicated upon the facts of the case. To that degree, the paper

11 has to be cautioned and qualified and I have done that.

12 Q. Thank you, Witness. I didn't refer to the scientific elaboration

13 of your report. I was referring to in terms of its application to the

14 realities of Sarajevo and here we should agree, I think, that in relation

15 to Sarajevo, this is comparatively hypothetical?

16 A. My understanding is that, for the purpose of this issue, the only

17 people who can determine what those realities were is the Tribunal. That

18 is how we started out.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I think altogether we have spent

20 some 20 minutes at least in cross-examination in order to establish that

21 the expert witness has based his expert report on the assumption that the

22 information that is given to him would be correct information. And to

23 start another play of words on whether this is hypothetical or based on an

24 assumption is not of great use at this moment. So please proceed.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. I will come back

1 to your conclusions, Witness.

2 Q. That is, paragraph 41 of your document, where you say, for

3 instance, and I believe it is in a hypothetical form, the fact of opening

4 fire on cemeteries would be one way of obtaining that objective and

5 accomplishing it. I think this is somewhere at the end of paragraph 41.

6 A. What I say in paragraph 41, relevant to cemeteries, is that --

7 well, I think I have to start by quoting the beginning. "If someone had a

8 primary purpose of inducing terror in a civilian population, the

9 literature reviewed here would suggest the following." And then in

10 paragraph 41 I go through a number of elements. Towards the end I say:

11 "The assault -- I talk about attempts to increase emotional tension. And

12 then I go on to say as one of these factors the assault would be designed

13 to create emotional overload perhaps by interfering with normal grieving

14 processes. Sniping at cemeteries would be possible to achieve this. Any

15 means to produce a feeling of helplessness or a sense of vulnerability

16 would be followed.

17 Q. Thank you, Witness. The information that you had in relation to

18 the firing on cemeteries, where did they come from? Are they the same,

19 from the Prosecution?

20 A. I believe that I had that information. I was certainly aware of

21 allegations that there had been firing on cemeteries from news reports.

22 So that goes well before the Prosecution. I am not citing that and I am

23 not saying that there was firing on cemeteries. I believe that there was

24 information in the witness -- from the witness statements showing that

25 there was firing on cemeteries.

1 But again, we need to --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, we now see how the witness

3 struggles with your question because you don't put to him what seems to

4 be, or what at least I have to take it that would be the Defence case. Of

5 course, he is guessing on what you want to know. Perhaps many other

6 people in this case would know. Why don't you put to the witness what you

7 want to ask him?

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] My question is very simple.

9 Where did he get that information from?

10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... Several, several,

11 several times how he got this information. He has now explained to us

12 that the firing on the cemeteries might have been known to him from news

13 reports before. And he says. Now please come to your point.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I was making a

15 distinction. The first intervention was, I think, related to shelling and

16 this one is clearly related to sniping. And these are two totally

17 distinct points. And my second point was to establish whether the sources

18 were the same in respect of sniping, and I think it is quite normal that

19 the Prosecution should do -- that the Defence -- sorry -- should do this.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Please come to your point, please.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Is it true, Witness, that as regards both shelling and sniping

23 incidents, that you -- basically you received information from the

24 Prosecution?

25 A. I have received -- it is the same answer -- I have received

1 information from the Prosecution. I have consulted the medical press.

2 Clearly I have knowledge through news reports. It is the same answer that

3 I have given consistently. What I try to focus on here is the

4 psychological implication of events that may or may not happened and are

5 for the Tribunal to determine.

6 Q. Very well.

7 Were you, yes or no, told by the Prosecution that it would seem

8 that the utilities in terms of water, gas and electricity, were sometimes

9 disrupted by the Muslim officials in Sarajevo?

10 A. No, I don't recall being told that.

11 Q. Thank you very much.

12 Witness, were you told whether near to the population and the

13 places in fighting of the town or in the surroundings of the town, there

14 were important military -- significant numbers of military force in terms

15 of manpower?

16 A. I believe I have already answered that question.

17 Q. Any men were on the Muslim side as far as you were considered,

18 under arms?

19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... The expertise of

20 the witness, totally beyond his report. Please proceed to your next

21 point.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have to confer, Your Honour.

23 [Defence counsel confer]

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the General

1 believes that we are not beyond the scope of expertise because if it would

2 so happen that, at Sarajevo, a considerable number of soldiers were

3 located in the city and were able to have been considered, in certain

4 moments and in certain places, legitimate military targets, then that

5 element should have been placed -- put at the disposal of the expert.

6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... The question is

7 whether it is all about. The question is whether your report and your

8 conclusions, based upon the facts as you received them, would be different

9 if, in the city of Sarajevo, the population was rather mixed, that means

10 to a large extent, military and civilian all mixed together. Would that

11 change your report and conclusions, and in what way would it change your

12 conclusions.

13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

14 I think -- I don't know that it would change my report very much,

15 but it would change the implications of my report for the Court. If

16 the -- if the same actions took place and the civilians were effected in

17 exactly the same way, whether on the one hand there were soldiers and on

18 the other hand, there were no soldiers, there probably would be a small

19 difference in that the civilians would appraise or understand the

20 behaviour differently. So there probably would be a difference in terms

21 of their perception of whether or not it was malicious or intended to

22 terrorise. That probably would make a difference.

23 But many of these factors would apply in both situations. So if I

24 can try and draw that to a conclusion, what I think I would say is that if

25 the civilians appraised the situation as being reasonable, there would

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 probably be less effect, but in spite of that, there would be wide-scale

2 civilian fear. If the civilians felt that it was malicious, there

3 probably would be a greater degree of fear. The implication for the Court

4 would be different, of course, because then you come into the question of

5 legal issue of proportionality and so on, which is not for me. But that

6 would be the best answer I think I can give at the moment.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 Q. Witness, have you ever testified as an expert witness before, in

10 relation to other comparable situations, that is a town in a situation of

11 war?

12 A. I don't believe I have given witness evidence about a town in a

13 situation of war, no.

14 Q. Witness, is it not true, especially when we speak of a city which

15 is comparatively small in dimensions, and where a war is evolving, that

16 the war is, in itself, a symbol of terror?

17 A. What I have said in this report and I think it was paragraph 31,

18 is -- and I think I have already quoted this -- "there is a likelihood

19 that civilians caught up in warfare, perhaps because they live close to a

20 military target will be effected by that experience.

21 "However, in my opinion, where civilians are systematically

22 targeted or where the offensive is and over and above that which is

23 explained by normal military objectives, these will be seen as malicious

24 and horrifying acts. These are likely to cause a much more marked fear

25 reaction [terrorisation] in the early phase. And then later in some

1 people, this will be replaced by apathy and despair."

2 Q. Witness, I have only two questions left. One has to do with what

3 you have just quoted, that is, paragraph 31. What do you understand by

4 what you have just said? That is to say at the end of page 15 and

5 beginning of page 16 in using words, "normal military objectives." Could

6 you be more precise, more specific.

7 A. No.

8 Q. Witness, so you do not know what normal military targets are?

9 A. As I have repeatedly said, I believe that that distinction as to

10 whether there was shelling or sniping at military targets is a matter of

11 fact and a matter for the Court. There are legal issues of

12 proportionality and distinction to be drawn. I don't think that those go

13 to my expertise.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Last question, Mr. President.

16 Q. Witness, you said that you learned of the indictment and of the

17 pre-trial brief. Is that correct?

18 MR. IERACE: Mr. President --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MR. IERACE: As interpreted that question does not make much

21 sense.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I think the question is whether you have seen the

23 indictment and the Prosecution's pre-trial brief.

24 THE WITNESS: The first two paragraphs of my record are headed

25 "basis for the report." In paragraph 1, I briefly summarised some of my

1 qualifications. In paragraph 2, I cite some of the source -- I cited the

2 source material that I have been provided with. That is a routine part of

3 my report.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Well, Doctor, is your answer yes or no?

6 A. In preparing this report, in addition to the reference material, I

7 also had access to extracts from the Prosecutor's trial brief dated

8 October 2001, a copy of the indictment against Stanislav Galic and a

9 number of short extracts of testimony from the trial transcript.

10 Q. So your answer is yes, thank you.

11 JUDGE ORIE: You said you had two more questions,

12 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. You are just asking the witness to repeat what he has

13 written unless, and it seems that you easily accept his answer.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I was wrong, I apologise.

15 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... Not read it,

16 fine, then I listen to your next questions.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I asked the

18 witness whether yes or no he had this. The witness wanted to read this

19 out, but an answer, yes or no answer would have been much simpler and that

20 was my last question. And my last question would be as follows:

21 Q. Witness, have you, yes or no given your document while you were

22 writing your document, whether you were knew about the pre-trial brief of

23 the Defence?

24 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, again, I don't understand the

25 question.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think the question is that in your report it

2 says that you had access to the pre-trial brief. I think the question is

3 whether you took access, I mean, whether you have read it.

4 MR. IERACE: It may be, Mr. President, that, in fact, the question

5 goes to whether he always had access to the pre-trial brief of the

6 Defence, but in any event, the witness, in reading the sentence from his

7 report, has made it clear that he had access to extracts from the

8 Prosecution's trial brief, not the brief as a whole. Thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes I see now that you are asking whether he had

10 access to the pre-trial brief of the Defence.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not if he had access to it,

12 but if he read it.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Have you read the pre-trial brief of the Defence?

14 THE WITNESS: No.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have just completed my

16 cross-examination.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, any need to re-examine the witness?

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.

20 MR. IERACE: Only one question, Mr. President.

21 Re-examined by Mr. Ierace:

22 Q. Sir you mentioned that the British Medical Journal was a peer

23 review journal. Could you please explain what that means?

24 A. What it means is that papers presented to the British Medical

25 Journal are sent out to independent reviewers before publication. I can't

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 say whether it applies to any particular paper, but that would be the

2 normal rule of the journal.

3 Q. Are there any qualifications for the independent reviewers?

4 A. They are peer reviewers so they would be --

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. I apologise, but there

6 are already problems of translation because of the rapidity of Mr. Ierace.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Since you are speaking the same language, it takes

8 some time to have it all translated. So could you -- the last question

9 was whether there were any qualifications for the independent reviewers.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise.

11 But if there are problems of translation, I think I have to mention them

12 for the transcript.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 It so happens that at line 18, the peer paper, that has not been

16 interpreted correctly, the French booth.

17 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that now the peer paper has been

18 properly translated? Or should I say the peers paper?

19 JUDGE ORIE: I see no objections any more, so please proceed, Mr.

20 Ierace.

21 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

22 Q. Sir, I was asking you whether you are aware of what qualifications

23 the independent reviewers must have to carry out their task?

24 A. I think what I would like to do for the Court is to answer the

25 question and then add a little clarification, if I may. Peer review means

1 review by scientific equals, so peer reviewers are people who are

2 recognised as experts in a particular field. So the qualification for a

3 review would be expertise. I have about a dozen of papers in my bag to

4 review which I may do some on the plane on the way home. That would be

5 some example of the peer review process. What this usually refers to is

6 material of a scientific nature. That is the clarification that I would

7 wish to add and be sure that I don't mislead the Court.

8 The article by Jones may or may not fall within that strictly

9 scientific definition. That is why I don't know whether it would have

10 been peer reviewed by external reviewers. The British Medical Journal has

11 a staff of doctors, so it would have been reviewed in-house by people

12 familiar with that area. And in fact, the British Medical Journal at that

13 time included people on the staff who were relatively knowledgeable about

14 this sort of area. But what I can't be sure is whether there would have

15 been external peer review of this paper, which I wouldn't wish to mislead.

16 MR. IERACE: No further questions, Mr. President.

17 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions. Let me just confer for one

18 moment.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I should address the interpreters first.

21 There are two questions from the Bench. We could have a break now and

22 then return at a quarter past 6.00 and then have these two questions. But

23 if you would prefer to translate those two questions and answers, we could

24 continue. May I hear -- I just have to change to one of the

25 interpretation channels. Could the French and/or the English booth and

1 the B/C/S booth inform me what they would prefer. I know it's long.

2 THE INTERPRETER: I think we can continue, Mr. President.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I hear from the English booth that we can

4 continue. I take it that that is the answer of all three booths. Judge

5 Nieto-Navia has one or more questions for you.

6 Questioned by the Court:

7 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President. Just two questions.

8 The first one is, you mentioned Dr. Aitcheson [Phoen] but as far as I know

9 he is not cited at the end as one of the sources you used. Is it because

10 you read it, but not quoted it or because you read it after writing the

11 report?

12 A. No, I read it and didn't quote. As I recall, that question was

13 about -- I made a comment in paragraph 10 about other reports with similar

14 descriptions and I was asked what other material there was that I hadn't

15 cited. I read it before, but it was in the form of a diary describing his

16 experiences in Bosnia. It didn't include the numbers that the other

17 reports had. It was consistent with them, but I chose to quote the other

18 ones because they gave more detailed information.

19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: My second question is the following: Let's

20 suppose that somebody who was in Sarajevo during this period sees when a

21 shell explodes and kills or injures people, probably some members of his

22 family. According to your report, he or she suffers a trauma. Is it

23 true?

24 A. Depends on what you mean by the word, "trauma" and this may need

25 to be careful in translation. As I would use the word, they suffer --

1 they experience an event, a traumatic event. It doesn't mean that they

2 develop a trauma response and that is where the wording becomes important.

3 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Okay. My question is the following: Is there

4 any difference in that case if the shell is fired by the Serbs surrounding

5 the city, or by the Bosniaks from within the city?

6 A. What I have -- there probably is. But let me try and explain.

7 What I have tried to do in this report is to say that there are a number

8 of factors which may interact and which may operate together. The event

9 of a shell firing, landing, killing other members of the family, well, if

10 I draw your attention to paragraph 29, that is the sort of event which is

11 certainly likely to be traumatic to many people.

12 But what I have tried to do in this report is to say probably

13 there are a number of factors which operate together which lead to a state

14 of terrorisation. And so that particular scenario affecting that

15 particular individual, is likely to run -- is likely to experience extreme

16 fear, distress and to have a persisting reaction to it. That would be

17 consistent with paragraph 29.

18 I am looking at the population, how many people in a population

19 would be affected. It is likely that a count needs to be taken of a whole

20 range of different events. And there I think the perception of that

21 shelling by others, perhaps not so close is important and that for them,

22 their perception, is this is a malicious act, is this part of a campaign,

23 probably does have an influence on the way they react to it.

24 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Turner, since there are no more questions from

1 the Bench, this concludes your testimony in this court. I thank you very

2 much for having come to The Hague and to have answered questions both of

3 the parties and of the Bench and I wish you a safe trip home again.

4 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, would you please escort Mr. Turner out of

6 the courtroom.

7 [The witness withdrew]

8 JUDGE ORIE: I did understand that it is of no use to call your

9 next witness any more. That is perhaps one of the reasons why we tried to

10 finish before this break, would mean protective measures to be put in

11 place, et cetera, that is not worthwhile and I take it the witness is not

12 there.

13 MR. IERACE: That is correct.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Even if we were to decide otherwise, we would have

15 another problem. That means that we will before adjourning, I take it

16 that the Prosecution tenders or is it -- I am just wondering -- yes, you

17 have given as the number P3716 for the English P3716.1 for the translation

18 in B/C/S. I take it that that this has been tendered in evidence

19 MR. IERACE: Except, Mr. President, it has already been filed so I

20 suppose it is already in evidence.

21 JUDGE ORIE: That is without any exhibit number. Let's say P3716

22 is the number for the filed expert report of Dr. Stuart Turner. Was the

23 translation filed as well?

24 MR. IERACE: No, Mr. President.

25 JUDGE ORIE: So that still would have to be admitted into

1 evidence.

2 Ms. Pilipovic?

3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, bearing in mind that

4 the Prosecution is tendering Dr. Turner's report as an exhibit, following

5 the cross-examination of Dr. Turner by the Defence, we object to the

6 tendering of this exhibit, considering that this document is based solely

7 on assumptions of one side, that is, as an expert opinion in finding it is

8 not complete and it is subjective.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Having an early break gives the Chamber an advantage

12 of considering it overnight and to give you a decision on this objection

13 by tomorrow. We will then adjourn until tomorrow in the afternoon at a

14 quarter past 2.00, same courtroom.

15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

16 6.00 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,

17 the 25th day of June, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25