1 Monday, 17 February 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Madam Registrar, would

6 you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T the Prosecutor versus

8 Stanislav Galic.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Is the Defence ready to

10 call its next expert witness. That would be Professor Dunjic.

11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I just want to

12 say that I don't have any translation on the channel. I know that B/C/S

13 is usually on channel number 6.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Still no translation, Ms. Pilipovic?

15 You receive translation, General Galic?

16 You can now hear me in a language you understand, Ms. Pilipovic?

17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Mundis, you're on your feet.

19 MR. MUNDIS: Good afternoon, Mr. President, perhaps while the

20 witness is being brought into the courtroom I can briefly address the

21 issue of a motion which the Prosecution filed on the 6th of February

22 concerning the request for reconsideration of the admission of the expert

23 report of Dr. Radinovic.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the -- there is a draft being prepared at this

25 very moment so it has our full attention. I couldn't tell you but it's, I

1 would say, a matter of days that you will receive the decision.

2 [The witness entered court]

3 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. Can you hear me in a language you

4 understand?

5 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.

6 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you are Professor Dunjic?

7 THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

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

10 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I see that

11 you have the text already in your hands may I advise you to make that

12 solemn declaration.

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

14 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

15 WITNESS: DUSAN DUNJIC

16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated,

18 Professor Dunjic. You will first be examined by the Defence, Ms.

19 Pilipovic, please proceed.

20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Examined by Ms. Pilipovic:

22 Q. Good day, Mr. Dunjic.

23 A. Good day.

24 Q. Before I start asking you questions, could you introduce yourself

25 and give us why you are full name, could you tell us when you were born

1 and what your area of interest is?

2 A. My name is Dusan Dunjic, I was born in 1950 in Belgrade. That's

3 where I graduated from the faculty of medicine. I am a doctor of

4 medicine. I received a Ph.D and masters and I am a specialist in forensic

5 medicine. At the moment I am the director of the Institute for Forensic

6 Medicine in Belgrade.

7 To date I have published over 160 professional articles which

8 concern all areas of forensic medicine. I have written -- I have

9 published several books that have to do with forensic pathology, I have

10 written a text book which I published on an independent basis for medical

11 students and I have also written a book which has to do with forensic

12 pathology and with issues with forensic medicine that relate to school,

13 the school in the European Centre for Peace and Development. It relates

14 to certain problems that arise when applying traditional medicine.

15 I am also the coauthor of a book that deals with the theme of

16 subject -- the theme of suicide. This book has been printed and reprinted

17 as a whole by the Russian academy of science. I have a special chapter

18 that deals with forensic matters in surgery with emergency medicine

19 with -- I am the coauthor of these books. I am also the

20 coauthor of an interesting book that was published and which resulted from

21 one of the projects that I've been involved in up to now and it deals with

22 the victims of torture, with people who were in camps in Croatia and

23 Bosnia, this book was published in English and I have brought it with me.

24 So I have been exclusively involved in the field of forensic

25 pathology and in the field of everything that has to do with forensic

1 medicine. In addition, as an expert, I've worked on several occasions in

2 Kosovo in 1998. I studied cases that concerned people who were killed in

3 the village of Glodjane and in 1999 in the village of Racak and in 2001

4 and 2002 as the chief of an expert team I was present at all exhumations

5 that were carried out in Batajnica.

6 As far as my social activities are concerned, I am a member of the

7 Association for Forensic Medicine in Yugoslavia and also in the former

8 Yugoslavia I've organised several congresses. I participated and directed

9 several projects that have to do with forensic pathology.

10 Q. Thank you, Professor. Regardless of the fact that in addition to

11 your report which we have provided to the Trial Chamber, we also provided

12 your curriculum vitae but thank you for mentioning all these details.

13 A. I apologise but I forgot to say - just a minute, it's among my

14 papers - I've been engaged here for the needs of the Tribunal on several

15 occasions, so I had to remind myself of this. In the case of Dusko Tadic,

16 IT-91-1 [sic], I provided an expert report for the Defence. I also worked

17 in the Foca group, IT-96-23, I made an expert at the request of the

18 Tribunal, it had to do with Zoran Vukovic who was in the Foca group. On

19 two occasions I examined the cases of Zoran Simic in the case IT-95-9-PT.

20 I've been engaged in this case by you and I was also engaged by the

21 Defence in the Plavsic/Krajisnik case, IT-00-39-I-40. I also worked with

22 the Prosecution and this had to do with all the cases that I already

23 mentioned and which relate to body parts that were found in the village of

24 Glodjane and in the village of Radjak in 1998 and in 1999.

25 Q. Thank you. Professor, at the request of Defence counsel, you

1 compiled a report which you completed in October 2002. My question is as

2 follows, is there anything that you would like to modify or anything that

3 you would like to add to the report that you compiled?

4 A. No, there is nothing that I would like to add. I've examined all

5 the material so it's not necessary.

6 Q. Can you tell us what kind of material you used when compiling your

7 report what material is your report based on?

8 A. Yesterday I made a list with the case manager and it has been

9 provided to the Trial Chamber, a list for each incident that has been

10 listed here. I have to say that Defence counsel provided me with medical

11 documentation, primarily with medical documentation and statements of

12 witnesses who have been heard here. I was also provided with certain

13 police reports which were among these documents slight -- at a little -- a

14 little later I was provided with photographs, video recordings and I have

15 to say that I didn't receive all this material at the same time. But I

16 was provided with this material at intervals and I had to examine it in

17 this way.

18 I'd also like to mention that I forgot to do so when I was

19 introducing myself. For this case, I also went to Sarajevo on two

20 occasions and I visited certain locations there which have been mentioned

21 in these cases here.

22 Q. You have told us about the material that Defence counsel provided

23 you with, you mentioned medical documentation, you mentioned witness

24 statements, police report, photographs, video recordings, was there

25 anything else that you used? If we're talking about witness statements,

1 which statements did you take into consideration in particular?

2 A. Well, above all the statements that were in the transcript, but I

3 have to say that I also used statements that were provided at the

4 beginning of this case so that in cases where I had to compare findings,

5 medical findings and these witness statements, that's what I used.

6 Q. Thank you. You said that you went to Sarajevo on two occasions,

7 can you tell us why?

8 A. Well, I went there together with certain ballistics experts,

9 people who represent the Defence in this case in order to have a look at

10 these sites where these incidents took place and have a direct knowledge

11 to gain information about the possibility of projectiles falling there,

12 hitting these places which wounded the victims that have been mentioned.

13 Q. You have told us what kind of material you used in order to

14 compile your report, can you now tell us what the basis of your report is?

15 A. Well, the basis of any forensic medical report is the medical

16 documentation, if such documentation exists, so this is the basis one uses

17 in order to assess wounds, in order to assess the number of wounds, the

18 nature of the wounds, these are the things that will be used in a

19 subsequent analysis or when compiling a report.

20 Q. Professor, you've told us, and that the medical documentation is

21 the basis upon which you compiled your report. Can you tell us, when

22 compiling your report, you examined all the cases which are mentioned in

23 the indictment, you only said that you didn't mention incident number 1.

24 Can you tell us whether with regard to all the cases whether you had

25 medical documentation for all of the cases?

1 A. I have to point out to the Trial Chamber that I carefully analysed

2 the medical documentation that related to all these incidents that was

3 mentioned in connection with all these incidents and I arrived at the

4 conclusion that in certain cases, there was no medical documentation

5 whatsoever. I was only able to analyse the witness statements, either the

6 statements of witness who had been heard or the statements of victims so

7 if we are talking about medical documentation, I could mention three

8 categories.

9 We have a group of medical documents which either concerns a

10 letter which releases someone from hospital or a short case history, a

11 photocopy of a case history, another group of documents would be death

12 certificates and the third group of documents, the third category would

13 include statements after post mortem had been performed. In fact there

14 was not a record of the post mortem, the autopsy report, there would just

15 be a diagnosis relating to the wounds.

16 Q. Thank you. Professor, bearing in mind you said there was three

17 categories of documents, can you tell us whether the medical documents

18 that you used were sufficient for your purpose? Were you able to compile

19 your report on the basis of these documents? Did these documents contain

20 sufficient information for you to compile your report?

21 A. I have to point out in the medical documentation that relates to

22 all the cases mentioned here, not a single medical document is not

23 sufficient and can't be used for forensic purposes and I'm also referring

24 to the first group of medical documents when I express such a position.

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 A. May I continue?

21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation].

22 Q. Yes, Professor, tell us -- we're talking about the quality of the

23 medical documents. That's a document which was part of the first group,

24 in your opinion?

25 A. Yes, this document belongs to the first group, so there are two

1 shortcomings here. The first one is a purely technical nature it's not a

2 very good copy, it's not very legible. The second shortcoming concerns

3 its contents and the extent to which it is valid for the Trial Chamber. A

4 diagnosis has been clearly mentioned here, it says "vulnus

5 transsclopetarium" and then it mentions the part of the body, "regium

6 frontalis femuris", et cetera. On the basis of that it is a medical

7 diagnosis of the wound to a certain part of the body, but that part can't

8 be used for forensic purposes, that means that on the basis of such a

9 medical document, I can't provide a valid piece of evidence with regard to

10 the question as to where the projectile actually came from. I can't say

11 whether there's one or several wounds, I can't say where the entry wound

12 is located or where the exit wound is located. So there is nothing that I

13 can say that would be valid or useful for the Trial Chamber or for my

14 report. Nothing I could say on the basis of this diagnosis.

15 Q. Thank you. Professor, bearing in mind that this medical document

16 was made during a period, it was a wartime period in that area, can you

17 tell us, given that you have told us how valuable such a document might

18 be, did you personally have the opportunity of seeing documents, other

19 documents that had to do with that area or present in that area in the

20 relevant time period and can you tell us what your conclusion is? We know

21 what your conclusions are on the basis of your report, but can you tell us

22 about the documents that you were able to analyse?

23 A. I have to say that because I'm dealing with these problems which

24 is the injury by firearms, for us, forensic specialists, what's very

25 important is that all relevant data about an injury have to be entered and

1 be part of the medical documentation. On this occasion, I do not wish to

2 attack my colleagues, doctors, that they are not writing the medical

3 documentation as they should because their primary purpose is to treat the

4 wounded which is perfectly normal but in this context, in this medical

5 documentation, I've had the opportunity to look and peruse a great deal of

6 medical documentation of those wounded who were brought to the Kasindol

7 hospital which is from the period of 1991-1992 that is from 1992 to 1995

8 where they were treated at the surgical department, the injured were

9 treated there.

10 The medical documentation that you have mentioned we have done an

11 expert report a month ago, this medical documentation can be categorised

12 in the same way as the first group of this medical documentation that we

13 were just talking about. So these injuries are listed and the treatment,

14 the intervention of the doctor was also mentioned but the actual

15 description of the injury, and the -- how the wound was treated does not

16 give us, the forensic specialists, to give answers that the Trial Chamber

17 needs, that is, when an expert report is required. So this medical

18 document is important, it does talk about the wound, the wound is there,

19 but there is nothing else apart from that.

20 So for a medical document, to have a legal standing, to have legal

21 value for a Trial Chamber, it has to have certain -- it has to be made

22 compiled according to certain criteria.

23 Q. Thank you, Professor.

24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, bearing in mind the

25 answer of Professor Dunjic, when he -- the way he has qualified the

1 medical documentation and bearing in mind that the Professor just told us

2 that he had the opportunity to peruse the documentation, Kasindol hospital

3 and he has carried out the examination of those documents, the Defence

4 would like to just show, without tendering these documents, we'd like to

5 just show some documents for which we would like to have the Professor's

6 opinion. The Defence has --

7 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the Prosecution would object on the

8 grounds of relevance to this entire exercise and if you'd like me to

9 explain the reasons why I would request to do so in the absence of the

10 witness assuming he speaks or understands English.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps if you would like to explain that, I

12 will have to ask you, Professor Dunjic, to leave the courtroom for a

13 while. I take it that you read or understand some English. Yes, which

14 is -- since the Prosecution would like to explain something in your

15 absence, I invite you to leave the courtroom together with the usher for a

16 while.

17 [The witness stands down]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.

19 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. The witness has told us

20 this afternoon that the documents that he did rely upon were insufficient

21 for forensic purposes. The Prosecution would assert that the procedure

22 which the Defence is wishing to undertake would involve showing this

23 witness medical documents from another hospital or from a clinic to which

24 none of the victims in this case were sent for treatment and ask him to

25 undertake a comparative analysis of the quality of those documents,

1 vis-a-vis the documents, the medical documentation that is in evidence

2 before this Trial Chamber.

3 The Prosecution would assert that there is little or no value in

4 him doing so in light of his previous testimony that the documents that he

5 did review were not sufficient for forensic purposes. To have him then

6 review documents from clinic which did meet his criteria, the Prosecution

7 asserts, would serve little or no value whatsoever to the issues before

8 this Trial Chamber.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic.

10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence wished to

11 show Professor Dunjic the documents, a couple of documents, that the

12 professor had the opportunity of seeing and giving his opinion on and by

13 showing these documents, we would like to demonstrate that

14 Professor Dunjic gave his analysis in an objective way because his

15 opinion, when we're talking about documentation, the medical

16 documentation, it can also -- is also valid for the hospital that was

17 under the control of the Muslims as well as the hospital that was under

18 the control of the Serbs. So that's why we believe that the credibility

19 of Professor Dunjic can be checked in this way and bearing in mind the

20 testimony of Defence witnesses who have testified so far, and who have

21 testified about the medical documentation that exists, in the sense of

22 injuries caused by firearms, also on this side under the control of the

23 Army of Republika Srpska, we wish to support the thesis of the Defence

24 that in that area, there was fighting, combat on a daily basis.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.

1 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

2 A couple of quick observations. In the first instance, the

3 Prosecution is not objecting to this procedure on the grounds that

4 Professor Dunjic is anything other than objective. Again, the basis was

5 that he has testified that the documents that he did review were not of

6 sufficient quality to allow him to undertake a forensic analysis.

7 Second of all, as my learned colleague has just raised the issue

8 of injuries on the side under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska

9 and in fact the documents which she is proposing to show to this witness

10 relate to injuries of Bosnian Serbs on the Serb-controlled side of the

11 confrontation line, and the Prosecution, again, Mr. President, would

12 contend that this entire exercise is of little or no relevance whatsoever

13 to the issues before this Chamber.

14 Thank you.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ORIE: The Trial Chamber allows you to ask questions about

17 one example of the other side, Ms. Pilipovic.

18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Your Honour, the Defence will present one medical document and I

20 had it translated and the booths have it as well. This is document number

21 two, just to help my colleague because I just handed the document to him

22 just before the break.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and may I ask you to very much restrict yourself

24 to the field of expertise of Professor Dunjic which is not how much

25 fighting was going on where, although I do understand that if you have

1 patients at one side of the confrontation line that it might be considered

2 to be likely that they came from that part of the confrontation line but

3 let's take advantage of the specific expertise of Professor Dunjic.

4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

5 Here, I have six copies of document number one so I think that will be

6 sufficient so it's document number one.

7 [The witness entered court]

8 JUDGE ORIE: Welcome back, Professor Dunjic.

9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation].

10 Q. Professor Dunjic, before this short break, you talked to us about

11 the value of medical documentation and you told us that you had the

12 opportunity of perusing the medical documentation from the Kasindol

13 hospital. The Defence will show you one document and, bearing in mind

14 your experience, could you please tell us if you had the opportunity of

15 analysing, examining such a document, would you be able to tell us about

16 its value, Professor?

17 A. Yes, yes, I had to read it first.

18 Q. Yes, please could you tell us.

19 A. These are two documents that you have before you, this documents

20 is a letter of discharge which was compiled for a patient that was treated

21 in hospital, his initials, dates, location and so on. At the end there is

22 a diagnosis and the diagnosis is in Latin. I am going to read it very

23 quickly and translate it. So, this is a firearm wound in the area of the

24 left ear and the lower jaw area on the left-hand side and there were parts

25 of fractured bones, that's what it says in Latin.

1 On the second page is an excerpt about how the injury occurred and

2 everything that was done. From this document, as I have already

3 explained, belongs to this first group of medical documents where I can

4 only find out that the certain person, name and surname, in this period

5 that is given, was treated and that person had suffered a firearm injury

6 somewhere on the left half of their face.

7 Now, if you ask me to explain whether this is an injury with one

8 projectile and what type of the projectile this injury was caused, what

9 was the position of the person that was injured at the moment when that

10 person was injured, I cannot answer that question. If you ask me how far

11 or, that is, the distance between the firing position and the body, saying

12 that this injury was caused by a firearm, whether it was with a shorter

13 barrel or a long barrel, again, I couldn't answer that question. And this

14 is, conditionally speaking, medical documentation which can be used during

15 an expert report, expert examination but from which we cannot use it so

16 that it can have an evidentiary value for the Trial Chamber. And in this

17 case, I would do exactly the same which is exactly what I did when I was

18 analysing in these other cases, as in these cases.

19 So what I would have to do or whoever does these things in terms

20 of forensic experts there would have to be an additional x-ray, an

21 additional examination and a detailed description of the wound from which

22 I could then draw what I can talk about in relation to the injuries where

23 you can ask me questions and I can give you the relevant answer.

24 So this is the identical type of examination which cannot be very

25 useful for an expert report.

1 Q. Thank you, Professor. So, so far, you first spoken to us about

2 what you call the first group of documents. You've told us that the

3 medical documentation in your opinion, the one that you've used that you

4 have categorised it, I think what you called the death certificate group,

5 and you also gave a third group of documents. Can you tell us, this

6 second group of medical documents that you tell us these are death

7 certificates, what is the value of such documents? And did you have the

8 opportunity that while you were doing your expert report, did you also

9 have such documents at your disposal when we were speaking about the

10 incidents that you examined for the expert report?

11 A. In these cases that I analysed individually, I did come across,

12 conditionally speaking, medical documents about -- which were death

13 certificates. These are kind of forms that are filled in by the doctor

14 but most of the time it's filled in by some other person, a layperson, a

15 non-medical person filling in certain data about the person who died and

16 the one -- in one box, that person says what is the cause of death, it's a

17 kind of layman's opinion without an autopsy, without an examination

18 diagnosis is written, that is, either vulnus sclopetarium, that is, the

19 firearm wound so on and the region. So on the basis of this diagnosis

20 this is the same diagnosis as it is in the other group of documents.

21 So it's a diagnosis from which I cannot give you any answers if

22 you ask me some questions. I can only say that this is such and such a

23 person who died and possibly I can see that if there is a cause of death

24 which has not been established in a proper way. So in this document, I

25 can't possibly use now in order to explain to you how that person came to

1 be injured, with which weapon, how many wounds this person had, and so on.

2 Q. Thank you, Professor. So my following question would be the third

3 group of documents that you had the opportunity to use during the

4 compiling of your expert report and can you tell us something about the

5 value of these documents?

6 A. In the third group of documents, there were reports, there were

7 also official medical documents that were issued by the administration of

8 the forensics institute in Sarajevo. Because I am a director of the

9 forensics institute in Belgrade, I know that we do not issue such

10 certificates as a rule to the court. In this certificate which I looked

11 at it just gives the diagnosis of the cause of death and one injury is

12 listed as proof that this person had been autopsied and that this was the

13 cause of death but now I don't have a document. I don't have the autopsy

14 report, a record of the autopsy from which I could assess how this injury

15 occurred, whether there was just one injury because plural was often used

16 so it could mean there were several projectiles or was it a projectile

17 from a firearm or was it shrapnel and so on. So this document is only

18 valid in the sense that it confirms one medical procedure was carried out,

19 like autopsy and that death was certified in relation to an injury but

20 there is nothing else that could be valid for an expert report.

21 Q. Thank you, Professor. When you gave us your position about the

22 value of the medical documentation that you used, can you tell us in

23 compiling your expert report and you told us you also had the opportunity

24 to read the statements of witnesses that were given to the investigators,

25 and also the testimonies of witnesses that you were also able to look at

1 the video material and that you were able to look at the photographs. Can

2 you tell us, looking at those sources that you used, how much were you

3 able to get from such documents? How valuable were the facts that you got

4 from those sources for your report?

5 A. The testimony of a witness that is -- that testifies either it's a

6 witness or it's the injured person, these testimonies are taken by an

7 expert as a kind of reference. In a sense that the testimony would help

8 me to establish the position of the body as defined by the person who was

9 injured in relation to a -- some relevant medical documentation and that

10 is why I looked over the video material, the photographs, and I have also

11 read the statements, the testimonies. And what is interesting here is

12 that as far as the medical documentation is concerned, it doesn't

13 correspond to, for instance, the statement, the testimony of a given

14 witness and I have -- would like to show what I am talking about. This is

15 about incident number 4, this is a Witness G, this is a protected witness

16 but I would like to show you what I mean. I can do you a sketch.

17 Q. Your Honour, bearing in mind the answer of the professor, and his

18 position in relation to such a situation, the Defence would like to first,

19 of course, with your leave, show the video materials so that we can all be

20 reminded of incident number 4. And also, bearing in mind that this was a

21 protected witness, this is Witness G, so this is incident number 4.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may play the video. We'll do that and

23 then -- closed session or ...

24 We are in closed session now.

25 THE REGISTRAR: No, we are not yet.

1 Ms. Pilipovic, do you have the P number for that video, please?

2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I do. I think that's

3 P3280AA -- A.

4 [Closed session]

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 19620 – redacted – closed session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 19621 – redacted – closed session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Could you use the English version of the report

5 because we don't know which version you'll use, Professor Dunjic. Are you

6 going to use the original version or are you going to use the English

7 version of the report?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a minute. It's all the same to

9 me. We can also use the English version of the medical document.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see it's very difficult to cover wherever the

11 name appears.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not necessary, Your Honour. I

13 won't show it at all.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and could you please read those parts of the

15 statement that is relevant because I do understand that you want to draw

16 our attention to contradictions.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Then may the document please be returned to -- it

19 will not be put on the ELMO and you are not going to read the name of the

20 person wherever it appears, yes?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right. Just a minute. No, the

22 drawing. I'll show it here. We can see the position of the body, at the

23 important point in time. This arrow indicates the direction the

24 projectile came from according to the witness. That's something that we

25 just saw in the video. In the medical documentation -- that's the

1 witness' statement that -- but in the medical documentation, it says that

2 the person in question was wounded through the right hemithorax, the 5th

3 thoracic or rather cervical point and that that projectile passed through

4 a part of the left thorax, that is what it says. What I've read out from

5 the medical document can be presented in the following way, Your Honour,

6 the right hemithorax, the spine and the left part of the left thorax that

7 would mean the projectile entered the body in this manner. So we have the

8 medical facts and we have the witness' statement which don't agree, these

9 two elements don't agree. Either he wasn't facing this way when he was

10 wounded when the witness was wounded or the projectile came from the other

11 side, not the side that he indicated.

12 This medical documentation is not sufficient. The medical

13 documentation doesn't say what the passage of the projectile was when

14 passing through the body and it doesn't say whether it passed through the

15 body, doesn't say whether there was an exit wound. The point between the

16 entry, the place where there was contact with the bone and the exit wound

17 on the basis of these three points we can establish the channel and

18 establish what the direction of the projectile was when passing through

19 the body and on the basis of the video that we have seen, and given what

20 the witness said with regard to the direction of the projectile, well

21 obviously there is a difference and as a forensics expert, I've pointed

22 out what should be done in order to clarify this matter for the Trial

23 Chamber.

24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Professor.

25 Q. Professor, your conclusion with regard to this incident --

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would very much appreciate if it could

3 see the video once more, even if it would be without sound which distracts

4 our attention from -- oh, yes, we have to turn it to closed session again.

5 Perhaps we could look at the video just before the break so that we lose

6 only half so we'll now continue and then just before we have the break,

7 we'll have the curtains down, look at the video again and then they can be

8 open again during the break.

9 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.

10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. Professor, with regard to this incident and your conclusion, on

12 the basis of the witness' statement and on the basis of the medical

13 documents related to this incident, you have told us that it is essential

14 to examine the victim in order to determine the point of the entry wound

15 and the exit wound with precision and everything else that has to be

16 determined, for example, whether it was -- whether the projectile was

17 fired in a direct manner and to determine what kind of projectile was

18 concerned; have I understood you correctly?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Professor, you have just told us that it's not possible to rely on

21 the witness statements or you've told us about the extent to which it's

22 possible to rely on it and on the extent on which it's possible to rely on

23 the medical documentation. I would like to focus on what ballistics

24 experts could say about the wounds, the direction of the projectile and

25 about determining the location from which the projectile was fired on.

1 These are the issues I would like to concentrate on.

2 My question is as follows: What does an expert report on the

3 projectile include in your opinion, if one wants to obtain a precise

4 answer?

5 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mundis.

7 MR. MUNDIS: The question included a statement focussing on

8 ballistics expertise and I'm not of the view that this witness is

9 qualified as a ballistics expert.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic.

11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Your Honour, given that we have heard a ballistics expert, and in

13 response to our questions, he said how it was essential for there to be

14 cooperation between ballistics experts and forensic medicine experts,

15 perhaps I should have asked the professor what has to be done if an expert

16 report has to be compiled about wounds inflicted from firearms and in

17 order for this report to be acceptable. I was thinking about the

18 testimony of our ballistics expert and it's in that sense that I put the

19 question to the witness.

20 JUDGE ORIE: But Ms. Pilipovic, if you are talking about what

21 would be needed in order to make an expert report, I think it would be of

22 some importance to know what expert report you had in mind. Are you

23 asking this witness what would be needed for a ballistic expert report or

24 are you asking this witness about what would be needed for a medical

25 expert report, forensic medicine? I think you --

1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. To provide a

2 report in cases of wounds inflicted by firearms, reports compiled by

3 experts in forensic medicine.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to say that I am an expert in

5 forensic medicine and I also deal with ballistics that have to do with

6 wounds so in a certain sense I am a ballistics expert but only within the

7 field that concerns and relates to wounds inflicted on the human body. So

8 when we are provided with a case as forensic experts and when we have to

9 analyse the documents, this includes cooperation with ballistics experts

10 and other technical experts who have to be involved in examining the case.

11 I do my bit, but the bit that I have to do as a forensics expert

12 relates to examining the body and determining, with precision, the wound,

13 the location of the wound. It's necessary to locate the point of the

14 entry wound, the existence of the channel, the wound channel, but before I

15 start my work, it's necessary to establish certain traces which can be

16 found around the entry wound. I have to control this in order to be able

17 to use the results when compiling an expert report.

18 So analysing the distance from which fire was opened and all the

19 traces that can be found on the body and on the clothes of the victim.

20 After that has done it's necessary to perform an autopsy in order examine

21 the wounded person and this has to include all the relevant facts and this

22 should include photographs, certain other methods, et cetera, et cetera,

23 and after this has been done, you have to analyse the records, you have to

24 analyse the witness statements which are relevant as far as the way in

25 which the wound was inflicted and then as ballistics experts and forensic

1 experts, once all of these elements have been gathered and analyzed,

2 together with the judge, the Defence, the Prosecution, we then go to the

3 site and we reconstruct the event at the site and it's only after we have

4 carried out all this work, after the ballistics work has been done, the

5 forensic work has been done, only after this has been done you can proceed

6 to reconstruct the event and you try to ensure that all the elements agree

7 with each other.

8 I say that the traces on the sites, we have reports on the traces

9 found at the sites, traces of blood, cartridges, gun powder, et cetera, I

10 do everything, I do the work that concerns biological traces as a forensic

11 expert and the ballistics expert has to do with analyzing the ammunition,

12 the rifle, et cetera, this is what he has to do and then we analyze the

13 records together and if necessary, we reconstruct the event with the

14 Court.

15 This is the procedure that would be involved if a forensics expert

16 has to perform thinks duties.

17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Professor.

18 Q. You've said that this would be the order in which a forensics

19 expert would proceed, can you tell us when there is a wound to the body.

20 As a forensics expert, what do you have to do?

21 A. As a forensics expert that deals with these issues, one has -- one

22 first of all has to establish whether the wound was inflicted by firearms.

23 So you first have to determine the cause of the firearm because you have

24 various kinds of wounds and this is very specific. When you have

25 determined that the wound was caused by a firearm, then it's -- by

1 projectile then you have to describe this with precision. You have to

2 detect the wound with precision, you have to determine where the entry

3 wound is. If there is an exit wound, you have to establish the location

4 of the exit wound, if we're dealing with someone who was killed then all

5 the traces surrounding the wound have to be gathered and analyzed in order

6 to determine what the entry wound is and what the exit wound is and in

7 order to determine the channel of the wound. That is the angle at which

8 the projectile entered the body in relation to the position of the body

9 and this is something that we have to tell the Trial Chambers, Courts.

10 This has to do with the angle of the projectile and the position of the

11 body.

12 I'll illustrate this in the following way because I'll discuss

13 this matter later on. I tried to use the computer to present this.

14 Q. So Professor --

15 A. I apologise, I'd just like to finish. If we're talking about a

16 fatal wound, it's necessary in such cases to determine the cause of death

17 and to determine whether the cause of death has to do with that wound

18 inflicted from a firearm or whether there were other wounds which caused

19 death and it's necessary to determine everything else relating to the

20 period of death. These are some of the main factors that have to be taken

21 into consideration by a forensic expert all the other kinds of analysis

22 have to be carried out, you have to determine the entry wound, you need to

23 use microscopes, you need to use x-rays of the body or parts of the body

24 and then you compile a report, that's the autopsy report, and this should

25 show whether the procedure was followed and on that basis, you might have

1 relevant evidence. This is why the documents that I had that I have

2 already commented on and this is why I said we only have a report on the

3 diagnosis but it doesn't mention the entry wound and the exit wound and in

4 this case, I wanted to demonstrate this to you. I don't know if we can

5 see it. I can't.

6 Can you see it?

7 Q. Thank you, Professor.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, would you please assist the witness.

9 A. I have demonstrated various body positions here and if you are

10 trying to determine the physiological position of the body, the channel

11 would be horizontal but if you are trying to determine the entry wound and

12 the exit wound you can see these two points here, let's say that this is

13 the entry and this is the exit. Now it depends on how the body moves.

14 The channel shall change depending on how the body moves. On this basis

15 it's possible to conclude that we can, if we have determined the position

16 of the body, we can determine from which direction the projectile came and

17 the direction it followed when it passed through the body. This is what

18 has to be performed when carrying out a forensics examination if this

19 examination is to be valid.

20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Professor.

21 Your Honours, since we have a few more minutes until the first break --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we could look at the video but first the

23 curtains have to be pulled down. And we return into closed session.

24 [Closed session]

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 [Open session]

7 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session, you may put on the ELMO the

8 sketch you've made, Mr. Dunjic.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I tried to make a sketch of the

10 position of the body, bearing in mind the angle, you can see the left side

11 and his back was facing the direction he pointed to with his hand when he

12 was indicating the direction from which the projectile came but according

13 to the medical documentation, the entry was here and it passed through the

14 left part of the body and the channel would then be opposite to the

15 direction of the projectile. The channel would be like this but he

16 indicated that the direction of the projectile was like this.

17 If he was fired at from here, or even if he was fired from this

18 direction, it should have passed through the left hemithorax but the

19 projectile entered at this point as it has been stated in the documents so

20 we have the medical documentation and we have the witness' testimony and

21 it doesn't agree which is why I said that he should be examined in order

22 to define the channel of the wound and in order to ensure that all the

23 elements agree.

24 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have half an hour, Ms. Pilipovic, to consider

25 the testimony so far. We'll adjourn until quarter past 4.00.

1 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.

2 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, could you, while awaiting the expert

4 witness again, could you give us an indication how much time you need

5 because a lot of what the expert witness said, I'm not saying everything,

6 but a lot of what he said is -- comes clearly from his report. I mean

7 that ...

8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my colleague also has

9 some questions to ask so we believe he will be for another hour, hour and

10 a half. I don't know how much time my colleague will need. We will try

11 and -- not to repeat what's already been said in the expert report.

12 JUDGE ORIE: The insufficiency of, let's say most of the documents

13 in respect of drawing any conclusions by forensic medical expert is not

14 something that should have taken such a long time. There are other very

15 interesting and perhaps new points but I'd rather concentrate on those.

16 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, how much time would you need?

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. President, I

18 was wondering about the new points. I won't need very much time. I think

19 that if I am very quick it should be about 20 minutes maximum.

20 JUDGE ORIE: And how much time would you need, Ms. Pilipovic?

21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] At this moment, I cannot make an

22 assessment. That will depend on the answers of the professor.

23 JUDGE ORIE: That's always true but you could give an assessment

24 on what you expect his average answer to be and you have some influence on

25 the length of the answers, as you are certainly aware of.

1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I think that

2 perhaps 40, 50 minutes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then try to conclude in one hour, all together.

4 Please proceed.

5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 Q. Professor, before the break, you told us that you as a medical

7 forensic expert, you have to establish when there is an injury on a body.

8 First of all, considering that you said that it was important to establish

9 the entry and exit wound and how this occurred, could you please tell us,

10 first of all, in your opinion, the entry wound, what does that depend on?

11 A. The entry wound, a projectile entry wound which is caused by a

12 firearm depends on many factors. One of the factors is the calibre of the

13 projectile. Another factor which is also important is the distance from

14 which the projectile was fired.

15 Q. Professor, my next question would be: What do you get by

16 analysing the distance and how do you conduct analysis of the distance

17 from where the weapon was fired? And if you can be as brief as possible.

18 A. I'll try. When we are doing a forensic analysis of a distance

19 from where the firearm was fired, first of all, is the entry wound, first

20 what it looks like, whether the projectile arrived, whether it was from a

21 distance or from a nearby location.

22 Another thing which is also to do with the assessment of the

23 distance is also analysing the traces that we can find around the entry

24 wound. Now here, I am showing what a entry wound looks like, a projectile

25 entry wound. As you can see, the entry wound that we have to describe in

1 detail, it's got a tissue injury, it's got a ring around it, it's got

2 traces of gunpowder and this black ring that you can see depends on the

3 angle under which the projectile enters the body.

4 Apart from that, what the entry wound looks like, as I said, also

5 depends on the calibre of the projectile. So what is that projectile the

6 moment as it enters the body. Of course what the entry wound looks like

7 also depends on the velocity of the projectile, the moment of the contact

8 with the body. Slower projectiles make more of a bruising of a tissue and

9 then they injure and then they injure.

10 Q. Professor, what do you get through the analysis of the entry

11 wound, what conclusions can you draw that would be important for your

12 expert report, what do you specifically get by analysing an entry wound?

13 A. By analysing an entry wound, first of all, you get information

14 whether this entry wound happened with a direct hit or whether through an

15 indirect contact. If the projectile changed its direction before hitting

16 the body then you establish a calibre possibly of the projectile itself,

17 after you have to establish the traces, whether this was done from a

18 vicinity or from a distance and what is important which is really to find

19 the exact location of the wound, whether it's on the front of the body, on

20 the side of the body, or the back of the body.

21 In medical documentation that I have so far analysed, I did not

22 have this piece of information in order to answer about an entry wound,

23 where it was, and how it was caused, whether it was projectile or whether

24 this was a fragment of a projectile. When I say a fragment of a

25 projectile which does influence the form of the wound, before it -- before

1 it enters the body, it could be that the jacket falls off and only the

2 jacket of the projectile makes that wound.

3 Q. Thank you, Professor. When you gave us your opinion about

4 everything that was needed and why it was needed to have the analysis

5 of -- conducted the analysis of an entry wound, can you tell us,

6 considering that you've told us that when we have bodily injuries, it is

7 also important to establish the direction of the channel of the wound, can

8 you tell us what information is it possible to acquire when you establish

9 the direction of the channel of the wound?

10 A. So apart from the characteristics of the wound, the channel of the

11 wound is one of the pieces of medical information that gives you

12 most -- more other information about the trajectory of the bullet through

13 the body and indirectly we also get the information about how the

14 projectile got to the body, arrived at the body and the channel of the

15 wound is, according to some categories, different. It can be a straight

16 line, if it's only going through soft tissue, it can also be -- it could

17 be cut up, that is when it goes through some organs that change its

18 trajectory through going, then it could be an irregular, for instance if

19 it is deflected by hitting the bone first or it could be in the form of a

20 ring. For instance, when we have injury of a skull, or the issue of the

21 top of the head, what can happen is that when the projectile loses its

22 energy, it goes around, either through the brain or around the brain or

23 around the tissue of the top of the head. Why is that important? It's

24 important because a projectile enters one end and then projectile enters

25 one end and it's found at a different end then it's very important whether

1 this projectile went as a straight line, so that's how the direction would

2 go or this projectile followed a kind of curve.

3 If it went and then it hit a part of a bone, and then it went to

4 the other side of the body, then the channel of the wound is not a

5 straight line. Then we have the entry wound and then into the first

6 obstacle and that then establishes, I'm sorry, but this channel, direction

7 of the channel of the wound not only tells us about the trajectory but

8 also the direction from which the firing came, which is what is vitally

9 important when we are talking about firearm.

10 Can I just give an example, I'm sorry.

11 Q. Very brief example. If it's an example, very briefly.

12 A. It's from my personal practical experience. I had an injury and

13 there was a man who was injured and this man was shot in the back by a

14 firearm. It was in the left shoulder-blade. And when he survived, there

15 was a question where the projectile was because there was an x-ray and the

16 projectile couldn't be found and logically it should have either come out

17 or it should have stayed in the thoracic area; however, what happened is

18 that the projectile, while the man was lying down went all the way through

19 the arm and stopped in the hand, the upper part of the hand so the

20 question was: How did it get into the body and how did it come there?

21 So what happened was when there was a shot in the back, the

22 injured was in a -- such a position that the projectile went between the

23 thorax and the shoulder-blade so this is how it went. As I'm showing you

24 now this is what the trajectory of the projectile was so the direction was

25 from that way, not really from the back as would have been logical if he

1 was shot in the back. That's why how important it is to conduct an

2 examination to establish the channel of the injury because that tells you

3 where the direction of the firing came, where it was.

4 Q. Thank you. Professor, now you've told us why, in your opinion, it

5 is important to conduct an analysis and to establish the channel of the

6 injury, and why this is important, what we get from it. So what I've

7 understood is the direction from where the bullet came can be established

8 or the projectile, did I understand you correctly?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you. Professor, what you're saying, during this testimony,

11 and also in your report, you say that it is necessary to carry out an

12 examination of the person who was allegedly injured by a projectile where

13 there is medical examination in existence?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can you tell us, in the cases that you've looked at, did you have

16 a situation where there is no medical documentation, have there been such

17 incidents?

18 A. Yes, there was medical -- there was such cases, for instance, even

19 when there was cases of death, when we had no medical documentation just

20 the witness testimony, witness statements, where we had no medical

21 documentation we didn't know what kind of injury this was, whether this

22 was a firearm or what kind of weapon this was. I believe that the

23 incident number 5, incident number 6, for instance, where we, for

24 instance, did not know what was the cause of death, what was the location

25 of the injury. We can see that when we go on to speak about these cases.

1 Q. When you are talking about incident number 5 and number 6 when

2 there is no medical documentation, can you tell us in your opinion, what

3 is necessary to have and to do in order to get relevant answers about how

4 the injury occurred?

5 A. The doctrine of forensic medicine is that in all death cases,

6 cases of death, it is important, it is necessary to conduct an autopsy.

7 If the autopsy has not been done, then an exhumation has to be carried out

8 and the autopsy done then. But here, when we have most of the medical

9 documentation which is incomplete, and invalid for carrying out such a

10 report, such an analysis, that is absolutely necessary to conduct an

11 examination because it is through the examination that we establish the

12 number of injuries the type of injuries, whether this was firearm, and

13 what type of firearm it was, if possible, and in cause of death, what

14 needs to be done in death cases, you have to carry out an autopsy, all the

15 traces and so on and if you have to do an exhumation then you have to

16 establish what the injuries were on some hard tissue or some soft tissue

17 if there's any left to establish the type and the number of injuries. It

18 is from this data from what is possible to get what can be established

19 that is the distance and the direction of the firing. We establish the

20 channel and the ballistic expert can establish where the fire had come

21 from. So without this relevant medical facts we are not in a position to

22 answer to the simplest questions: The cause of death, how that person

23 died, what injuries he suffered, what was the position of the body when he

24 died, et cetera.

25 So what I'm telling you now, this is our doctrine, all this is

1 reflected also on the people who were not -- who did not die from firearm

2 injuries.

3 Q. Professor, when you were telling us about the necessity of

4 establishment the -- what the entry and the exit wound looked like, can

5 you tell us is there a difference between the entry and the -- can you,

6 according to what the entry wound looks like, can you establish what type

7 of projectile this was or whether it was a direct hit or whether it was a

8 ricochet?

9 A. The entry wound gives you most of the information as a rule about

10 the type of the weapon that was used or how the projectile arrived at the

11 body. We know that there are injuries which were -- happen from a

12 distance or from the vicinity and there is a characteristic difference.

13 Whether it's from a close range, from point blank range, we know that the

14 entry wounds are in form star shaped and if it's from a distance we know

15 that these entry wounds are regular but if they are regular if they come

16 under a right angle and then they are -- for instance, if the projectile

17 enters under a right angle, then they are relatively regular, that is the

18 form of a circle but however if it comes under at a different angle then

19 it would be a ellipse. Now if we have a projectile that enters at a right

20 angle, so it's like a circle the projectile has not been damaged

21 when -- before it entered the body in the situation where the projectile

22 doesn't come at a right angle, first it suffered a deformation, perhaps it

23 hit an obstacle or perhaps it's pushing something in front of it then the

24 projectile may suffer a deformation and this deformity will cause the

25 entry wound to be irregular and then it can have different shapes.

1 If the projectile cuts through -- is broken into a jacket and the

2 charge inside the bullet, then these two parts of the projectile can make

3 irregular -- cause irregular wounds or even several wounds apart from this

4 one entry wound so it's very important to establish whether this wound,

5 the entry wound came from a direct contact or not. But if we establish

6 that the entry wounds are of this form then we know that the projectile

7 had hit something in the meantime.

8 If it's a regular form, if it's a circle, then we know it came at

9 a right angle and that it wasn't deformed before it entered the body. So

10 it -- it's on the entry wound we can see what also the type of ammunition

11 that was fired, what does that mean?

12 Q. Professor?

13 A. Just a moment, this is important. When you have a pistol bullet

14 which enters a body at the right angle undeformed, undamaged, then the

15 diameter of the entry wound is about 8 millimetre for standard calibre

16 7.65, however, the rifle 7.62 millimetres, that is, a rifle bullet because

17 of the energy that it carries, will make a much bigger entry wound which

18 the diameter of which is 12 millimetres on average. And what we've done

19 is not -- we haven't done experiments, we -- what we did is that we

20 followed these types of injuries -- depends on the entry wound will type

21 of the entry wound and the velocity of the bullet gets to the body and

22 everything else that I have said.

23 Q. Professor, thank you.

24 You have told us about the discrepancies between the medical

25 documentation and the testimony or the statement of the witness on the

1 scene of the incident about the direction, according to the victim where

2 the fire came from and also, you've told us that there was a location

3 mentioned in the medical documentation as well. Can you tell us about the

4 cases that you've examined, whether such incidents, other incidents where,

5 according to you, there was medical documentation, but it was

6 contradictory to the statement or the testimony of the witness, that is of

7 the victim?

8 A. Well, if that is the case, we can maybe follow an order.

9 Q. Can you tell us about cases number 2, 3?

10 A. Yes, for instance, for case number two, I have a -- number 2 I

11 have made some notes. We have the witness statement or testimony, we have

12 some photographs, and that's a film where --

13 Q. I said number 2, in that case?

14 A. There's no medical documentation. We have a statement which says

15 that the injury was done to the soft tissue of the left thigh.

16 Q. What can you tell us when you don't have medical documentation,

17 what can you do then?

18 A. Well, an examination has to be carried out. Why an examination?

19 Well, first of all to establish whether this was done by a firearm or to

20 locate the entry wound. When you locate the entry wound then we can

21 establish the channel of the wound. And it is from this that we see here

22 where it says in the medical documentation that it was the soft tissue of

23 the right thigh. It doesn't mean anything to me as an expert doesn't mean

24 anything. I cannot answer the question where she has been hit from,

25 whether it's from the vicinity from a distance, where it was entry r exit

1 wound or whether it was just one entry wound I cannot answer any of these

2 questions.

3 Q. Thank you, Professor. You've told us now about the incident where

4 there is no medical documentation. Can you tell us your opinion in

5 relation to incidents where you had medical documentation but the victim

6 that was allegedly hurt was not asked for a statement, was not -- did not

7 give a statement?

8 A. I have to say there was such cases where the witness was not at

9 all hurt.

10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] With the leave of the Chamber, I

11 will remind you we had the incidents number 9, number 22, number 25 where

12 the victims were not hurt where there was medical documentation did exist.

13 A. I have to say for instance regarding incident number 9 since I

14 have also made some notes for myself, I have to first point out so far

15 what I have said, I think you can see how relevant it is to hear what the

16 victim and the witness have to say but it's not up to me to say. Up to

17 me, it is to see whether the medical documentation corresponds to the

18 possible statement of the injured party.

19 Now, here we see that there was a injury, exit and entry wound to

20 the left upper leg and we have a police report that says that there was a

21 machine-gun -- there was a burst and that even fragmentation bullets were

22 used and this fire was opened. I don't have a relevant medical

23 documentation to establish fragmentation bullets. What was the entry

24 wound? What was the channel of the wound? And from where this person was

25 fired on in relation to the position that was defined. This person was

1 not -- did not define a position because it wasn't heard about

2 the -- where she was -- where this person was standing. So there is -- so

3 there is nothing that can be said about that.

4 You've also mentioned incident number 22.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, may I just ask you what have you now

6 elicited on incident 9 from the expert what is not in his report? It's

7 all what he says in his report. I'm just trying to remind you that let's

8 use the time. The Chamber really reads these reports with great care.

9 Yes, please proceed.

10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 Q. Professor, when you've told us that you have carried out a

12 comparison of medical documentation, and specifically the statement of the

13 victim that was heard or the persons who testified during the trial, your

14 position and you have already stated it in the report, that it is

15 necessary to carry out an examination of the victims.

16 Can you tell us very briefly what would you achieve from an

17 examination and what would you achieve from an exhumation since you said

18 that in cases or in persons in the incidents when there is no medical

19 documentation where death occurred it would be necessary to carry out an

20 exhumation?

21 A. I have to somewhat correct you. I cannot say -- you said where

22 there is no medical documentation. There is no medical documentation

23 which is relevant for this kind of report. Even where there is a

24 diagnosis, where there is some medical documentation, I cannot fullfil

25 this report, I cannot answer all the questions, what type of wound that

1 was, whether this was an entry wound or whether it was an entry and exit

2 wound and what was the direction of the channel of the wound and if I

3 don't know that, and if I, for instance, have the testimony of the

4 witness, the statement, I've seen video recording, most of the time, they

5 do not correspond to each other as I have already demonstrated in case

6 number 4 and this is what limits me to give you a full expert report with

7 valid data that you can use.

8 That is why I'm asking, or rather, I'm giving you a suggestion

9 that those who do not have medical documentation, either don't have it at

10 all or it is incomplete, that an examination of living persons should be

11 carried out because -- then the entry wound and the channel that can be

12 established can give us information about what we're talking about. The

13 distance of the firing, the direction of the firing, the number of the

14 injuries and whether these injuries were caused by fragments of

15 projectiles or with complete projectiles, that is what is important.

16 When, in cases of exhumations, where there were no autopsies done,

17 if autopsies were done and we only have an autopsy report which said

18 examination was carried out then I would like to have an autopsy report, a

19 full autopsy report and I would like to comment and perhaps I could then

20 fully comment it, give it -- talk about the trajectory of the direction

21 and the ballistics can confirm. But a person who was not autopsied, a

22 person who was buried from a doctrine point of view from forensics, then

23 all the elements have to be gathered to establish what happened.

24 First of all, whether this person died because of an injury or

25 not. For instance, I think there was a case number 21 that the man died

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 several days later, we don't know why. Was it caused by that injury or

2 because -- or he died because of something else. It could be natural

3 causes.

4 Q. Thank you. Professor, having mentioned all these observations and

5 your position with regard to providing a complete report, can you tell us

6 how much experience you have with regard to firearms wounds?

7 A. Well, I've been involved in forensic medicine for a long time now.

8 Last year, 2002 and 2001, I performed autopsies and made expert reports

9 for over 500 cases in the institute for forensic medicine in Belgrade.

10 This has to do with various kinds of wounds, suicide wounds, firearm

11 wounds, et cetera, and I would like to point out that in the last few

12 years, in the last couple of years I carried out those exhumations in

13 Batajnica and there were over 700 cases of people who had been wounded by

14 firearms and we performed an autopsy for each case.

15 This large number of autopsies, well, I can only compare these

16 orders when I was in Racko, the team leader, the Finnish team leader,

17 Professor Antipentilo [phoen] told me that out of 2.000 autopsies carried

18 out in Helsinki, there were about 40 firearm wounds and if we have 1.500

19 autopsies at our institute, over 300 cases are cases of people who were

20 wounded by firearms, fatally wounded, not to mention the court cases where

21 people were wounded by firearms but were not killed.

22 Q. Thank you. Professor, we'll -- my colleague will now put a number

23 of questions to you.

24 Examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:

25 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Professor. I would like to turn to

1 what you mentioned a minute ago and could you answer to the extent that

2 this is possible by saying yes or no.

3 My first question: Professor, did you make such -- did you

4 compile such reports during the so-called embargo period, the embargo that

5 was imposed on the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Professor, did you write such reports during the so-called bombing

8 period, the so-called bombing period by the NATO forces in the SFRY; yes

9 or no?

10 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President, relevance and leading.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

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

13 it's relevant because if it wasn't I wouldn't ask this question. I'll

14 gladly explain this to you in the absence of the witness.

15 JUDGE ORIE: The relevance of this issue and something that I mean

16 you ask him whether he did write such reports and the answer will be yes

17 or no, I take it. Is the relevance something -- will he say something in

18 between? You asked him ...

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I can answer the question that

21 concerns the leading nature of this question, if you like.

22 JUDGE ORIE: The objection was about relevance and not about

23 leading -- or both I have not been -- yes, as far as the leading is

24 concerned, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that objection is denied, the relevance is

25 the issue that -- at this point.

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE ORIE: We'll ask the witness to leave the courtroom.

4 Mr. Usher, could you please escort Professor Dunjic.

5 [The witness stands down]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the relevance

8 is quite simple. We know that the former Yugoslavia, that an embargo was

9 imposed on it which was severe and then it was bombed. We know as a

10 result that the circumstances perhaps establish what is sought or perhaps

11 the circumstances on which one wants to determine the position of bodies

12 at possible crime sites it's far more difficult than in normal

13 circumstances and similarly it's possible to establish an analogy with the

14 situation in Sarajevo and I would have liked this witness to tell us

15 whether in spite of the circumstances which are really difficult - being

16 bombed is not very agreeable - I'd like the witness to be able to tell us

17 whether one could establish the position of the bodies and follow a

18 certain procedure and then we could conclude something with Sarajevo.

19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Injuries caused

20 by anything else than what we call sniping incidents? This is a report

21 about shelling or ...

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President, no. I

23 expressed myself badly, I apologise. What I meant is that when one is

24 being bombed and when an embargo has been imposed one perhaps doesn't have

25 the necessary means, the technical means, et cetera, the photographic

1 means to carry out one's work and in normal circumstances, it would be

2 easier.

3 What I want to know is whether in spite of these difficulties that

4 have to do either with the bombing or the embargo imposed on Yugoslavia I

5 would like to know whether it was possible to analyse the channels and to

6 determine the positions of the bodies. This issue has nothing to do

7 directly with the shelling of Sarajevo.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.

10 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the Prosecution does not take the

11 position that this expert is not capable of testifying about channel

12 wounds with respect to shooting incidents. The issue is not the quality

13 of his expertise with respect to that field.

14 JUDGE ORIE: No, I do understand, but the question of

15 Mr. Piletta-Zanin was introduced in order to compare the, I would say the

16 possibilities of investigating medical examination of victims under

17 difficult circumstances and to make a comparison. Mr. Piletta-Zanin --

18 will Mr. Usher please escort the witness into the courtroom again.

19 You may ask questions to the witness in this respect.

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

21 So as not to waste time, I'd like to point out to the French

22 booth, page 10, line 12, I don't know if one should say -- Mrs. Pilipovic

23 or something else but it's certainly not Mr. Pilipovic.

24 JUDGE ORIE: It could not have created any confusion but

25 nevertheless, I appreciate that you made this correction,

1 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

2 [The witness entered court]

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation].

4 Q. Witness, you can you hear me?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. I think you answered yes to the question that was put to you and

7 the question was whether you had carried out investigations during the two

8 periods that I mentioned. During these two periods that I mentioned, the

9 embargo imposed on Yugoslavia and then the bombing of Yugoslavia, during

10 these periods, the circumstances in which one had to work, were they more

11 difficult than usual? What can you tell us about this, et cetera, at the

12 level of your work, the research examinations that you had to carry out in

13 your field in a few words?

14 A. When the embargo was imposed and when the bombing was carried out,

15 as far as forensic medicine is concerned we adhered to the principles

16 absolutely, we carried out our duties, or the victims, all of those who

17 had been killed or wounded we examined them and compiled valid medical

18 documents from which the relevant conclusions can be drawn.

19 Q. I'll interrupt you then. My question wasn't whether you managed

20 to carry out your work. My question was whether the conditions were

21 objectively more difficult?

22 A. The conditions under which we worked were more difficult

23 absolutely.

24 Q. Very well, I'll stop you there, Professor. Thank you. In spite

25 of these difficulties, am I to take it that you managed to carry out your

1 work and in particular, with regard to the position of the bodies in given

2 incidents; is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you, Professor. Professor, with regard to this subject, I

5 would like to go back to what you stated and I am referring to page 33 but

6 my computer is blocked. You said that the precise determination of the

7 channel would establish -- would allow one to establish the direction that

8 fire came from; do you remember saying this?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you. Professor, what happens with regard to what you have

11 stated, what you have affirmed if the body is badly positioned, that is to

12 say, to be more precise, if the record does not correctly establish the

13 precise position of the body at the time of the incident? What could the

14 results of this be?

15 A. If I have understood you correctly, the results of this, we're

16 talking about an injured party, if we don't have -- if we don't know this

17 position, then we are unable to determine the position from which, let's

18 say the projectile came. We have no basis for determining this because

19 that is only one point in a series from the point -- from the position

20 where the projectile was fired from to the point where the projectile came

21 to an end.

22 Q. Professor, I'll stop you there. In spite of the difficulties at

23 that time, on the basis of your experience, was it possible and if so by

24 having recourse to what kind of means, was it possible to indicate

25 precisely in the record what the position of a body was at the time of a

1 given incident?

2 A. In these cases?

3 Q. Yes, exactly.

4 A. In these cases, if someone had been wounded, and if the wounded

5 person was taken away from the site immediately because the statements of

6 the witnesses usually say something to this effect, in such cases, it

7 would have been necessary to follow certain procedure later on to

8 determine the location and the position of the person when that person was

9 wounded and one must bear in mind the medical documentation and cooperate

10 with the forensic expert who would determine the nature of the wound and

11 the channel, et cetera. So that would be regardless of the conditions

12 under which this happened. These are things that could be subsequently

13 performed.

14 Q. Professor, I'll stop you there, my question is as follows:

15 According to your experience in your field, your professional experience,

16 even in very difficult circumstances, or in difficult circumstances is it

17 possible, by whatever means, to immediately establish, for the sake of the

18 record, what the position of a victim was at a given point in time and if

19 such means do exist, could you tell us what their nature is?

20 A. I couldn't answer that question because it's of a local character,

21 of a local nature. What we could do in Belgrade, at home, well, we could

22 establish the traces at the site by photographing the site, by

23 photographing what was there, what was present at the site.

24 Q. Very well. Is it possible, was it possible, perhaps, in difficult

25 circumstances, even if this was post mortem, was it possible to establish

1 the trajectory of this channel that you have been discussing?

2 A. Absolutely, yes.

3 Q. Is this something that requires a kind of infrastructure that

4 would be in relation -- which will have recourse to the means that one

5 could find in cities such as Sarajevo?

6 A. As far as I know, there is an institute for forensic medicine

7 there and autopsies were performed there.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We have a technician here,

9 Mr. President, I appreciate that but this time I didn't request his

10 presence.

11 JUDGE ORIE: You mentioned that your lap top didn't work and

12 therefore you referred to page 30 in a rather vague way so I find it very

13 attentive of the technicians to come to help you even if you do not

14 explicitly ask for it.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am grateful to everyone, but

16 it didn't work. There is a certain discrepancy with regard to the lines I

17 just didn't mention this because I wanted to avoid losing track of the

18 line one was referring to. Thank you.

19 Q. Witness, I'd now like to go back to the issue of direct and

20 indirect fire. You mentioned the form of these wounds and my question is

21 as follows: Is it possible to always exclude or is it possible not to

22 exclude the possibility of a ricochet when one examines a wound, and if it

23 is possible or if it is not possible, what are the reasons for this?

24 A. I said that when a projectile encounters an obstacle, then it's

25 possible for it to ricochet. I also forgot to say that when a projectile

1 hits a hard surface, the angle at which it rebounds from the hard surface

2 is not as great as when the projectile rebounds after having hit a water

3 surface.

4 Why is this important? When a projectile hits a hard surface, a

5 wall or wood, et cetera, then the projectile is deformed and the

6 deformation at the front, at the tip of the projectile forms an irregular

7 entry wound and it now has the impression of that projectile, an angle of

8 the projectile at which the projectile hit a surface. If the projectile

9 hits a surface but is damaged, let's say like this, horizontally, and it

10 just catches a surface, it's not deformed at the front, it's possible for

11 such a projectile to enter at a right angle or at some other angle and

12 then the wound can be a regular wound as if the projectile was a regular

13 one which didn't ricochet.

14 So it's only if the tip of the projectile is deformed, having hit

15 an obstacle. In such cases it causes an irregular wound but if the axis

16 of the projectile hasn't been changed, if it hasn't been deformed at the

17 tip, then the entry wound doesn't have other characteristics, it doesn't

18 have characteristics that could distinguish it from the characteristics of

19 a wound caused by a regular hit.

20 Q. Witness, according to your answer, it's theoretically possible to

21 find wounds which resemble wounds caused by a direct hit; is that what you

22 wanted to say, that a wound caused by a ricochet can resemble a wound

23 caused by a direct hit?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Witness, is it also possible, since you are speaking about lateral

1 deformation, is it possible to have deformations which are more

2 significant on the projectile itself but by accident, it enters the body

3 at a right angle and the entry wound can be compared to or similar to or

4 what one calls a direct wound; is this possible?

5 A. This is the projectile, let's say, what causes the diameter of the

6 wound is this cross-section here. So if it enters like this and then the

7 wound is circular so damage that might be caused here would not affect the

8 entry wound but if the projectile, having hit an obstacle has the tip, the

9 front part which is deformed then this will be the diameter of the

10 projectile and then the wound will have more or less the same shape as the

11 tip here. And about -- with regard to wounds, I should tell you the

12 following immediately and this is why I say that it's always necessary to

13 carry out an examination. The scars left on the skin caused by such

14 wounds, they are also dependent on the size and the form, the shape of

15 these entry wounds, when the projectile is a direct hit, these scars are

16 relatively regular, provided that the doctor did not intervene.

17 If the projectile caused an irregular wound, for example, as is

18 the case in exit wounds, in that case, the scar will also be irregular and

19 on the basis of the look of the scar, if we carry out the examination of

20 someone who was wounded at an earlier date, we can determine the entry and

21 exit wound and the trajectory and we can determine whether the projectile

22 entered he had at a right angle or an in a regular manner or whether it

23 entered in an irregular manner.

24 Q. Professor, thank you. When one describes a wound, and I'm

25 referring to entry wounds, on the basis of your experience, can you tell

1 us whether, according to the laws, the rules of the profession, must

2 one -- should one describe this wound in precise physical terms, et

3 cetera, or perhaps not?

4 A. Well absolutely, yes.

5 Q. Witness, with regard to all the information, all the exhibits you

6 could examine with -- in relation to all the incidents that you looked

7 into, was there a similar description, yes or no, a similar technical

8 description of the entry wound that you came across in these documents?

9 A. Unfortunately, no. That's why I --

10 Q. Witness, I'll stop you there. You can finish later but I'll

11 interrupt you now. At the time, was it possible to give a physical

12 description and to say how these entry wounds appeared?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. Professor, what, in technical terms, are the results,

15 are the scientific results, of these omissions in all these documents of

16 the fact that the description of the entry wound was not present in all

17 these documents?

18 A. Well, one of the results is I can't say whether it was a direct

19 projectile, I can't tell you whether it's -- whether it concerns one

20 projectile or a rifle projectile or whether it concerns some other kind of

21 projectile. When I say some other kind of projectile, then I'm referring

22 to a fragment of an obstacle hit by a projectile or perhaps a projectile

23 that ricochetted, deformed projectile or -- a projectile can also be made

24 of fragmentation matter, it goes very far and is not regular, that's also

25 called a projectile and can inflict a wound too but on the basis of this

1 description, these descriptions that I had in the medical documentation,

2 it's impossible to come to such conclusions, even in the cases where we

3 have a diagnosis.

4 Q. Professor, you've said that projectiles include several things.

5 You spoke about and drew a certain number of what we would call bullets,

6 what else would you include in this category, in the category of

7 projectiles, as an expert, as a specialist in this field, what would you

8 include in this category?

9 A. Well, very broadly speaking, that would include any object that

10 causes a sort of hole and has a channel. Do you want me to show you a

11 photograph of a wound caused by shrapnel, caused by a projectile that

12 disintegrated? I have this in colour, I have prepared this.

13 Q. You spoke about the fragmentation of shells, do you include this

14 in the category of projectiles that might have been involved in certain

15 incidents? Given you that you don't have enough information, would you

16 include these things in such a category in such a projectile category?

17 A. Even a part of shrapnel is a projectile when it hits the body but

18 I cannot define the wound from the documentation.

19 Q. Yes, Professor, but is there a theoretical possibility or

20 practical possibility that in the cases that you have examined, when the

21 wound, for instance, had caused that death that there were projectiles

22 that would have caused this death were not bullets as we call them but

23 were other projectiles? Not bullets. Thank you.

24 A. Just a moment, I have understood the question but let me just

25 think. I believe that there was a person, I don't remember what the

1 incident number was, it was in the maxillary sinus that she was hit at and

2 she had a -- it's a very thin body, there was a part of the projectile or

3 a projectile or "projectile" had stopped at the maxillary sinus and

4 according to the witness statement testimony, there was a gravel surface.

5 We don't know whether that was a part of that surface which had been an

6 actual projectile or it was part of the, say, fragmented jacket of the

7 projectile we don't know that because I don't have the documentation that

8 can tell us this.

9 Q. Professor?

10 A. Are you speaking about incident number 17, to clarify things,

11 could you please check if you can?

12 A. Yes, that's correct. And I have written it down not only

13 examination has to be carried out but also an x-ray has to be taken to

14 establish this.

15 Q. Now, in a general sense, could it be that in all the cases that

16 you have examined, apart from -- without having a precise definition of a

17 type of wound, one wound which we would think was caused by a bullet,

18 sometimes it could be caused by something else. Now this possibility,

19 does it exist as long as we don't have the form and a full description of

20 the wound?

21 A. In these cases that I have mentioned where there is doubt because

22 of the size of the wound or because of the damage that it caused, I don't

23 know that. You're asking me something that I cannot answer also because

24 of the medical documentation.

25 Q. Thank you. Very well. But I'm going to ask the question

1 differently now. Normally, would you need a medical file which would give

2 you all the necessary elements to give such an answer, for instance, yes,

3 bullet wound or to say no, wound caused by something else? Would you need

4 such a medical file with all the elements? Very briefly.

5 A. They would have to be found if everything was carried out that was

6 supposed to be carried out by the doctor.

7 Q. Thank you. But in -- as far as you know, about your field of

8 expertise, and about also the delicate circumstances at the time, do you

9 think that this would have been technically achievable?

10 A. Not only it should have been done, technically, that it was

11 possible, but it should have been done first. The therapy, the treatment

12 depends on the diagnosis, the diagnosis has to be established what had

13 entered the body. You have to have an x-ray, you have to have an

14 examination, you have to have all this in order to take some steps in

15 terms of treatments so if this has been done, if this has been a medical

16 intervention has followed all that had to have been noted.

17 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand what has to be done. The question,

18 however, was whether, if you would have all data available, whether you

19 could distinguish between a bullet wound and a wound of a different

20 character such as, for example, caused by shrapnel pieces. Yes. That was

21 the question, as far as I understood, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that will be

22 technically possible.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That was the pre-question,

24 Mr. President. The question in the -- in its second part is the

25 following:

1 Q. Witness, do you have any idea, perhaps you do, perhaps you don't,

2 that for what should have been done technically speaking, was not done?

3 Do you have an opinion as to why this was not done?

4 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether this last part of the question

6 was properly translated. Could you please, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, repeat the

7 last few words of your question.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. The question

9 is the following:

10 Q. Since, witness, you are telling us that certain things should have

11 been done, and you're telling us that apparently they were not carried

12 out, they are not in this file, do you have an opinion as a practitioner

13 why, according to you, these things were not done?

14 JUDGE ORIE: I take it and then the objection stands, Mr. Mundis.

15 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President.

16 JUDGE ORIE: You're asking about why certain things that would be

17 necessary to establish in order to be able to draw certain conclusions,

18 whether it has not been done. Professor Dunjic, this question is a

19 question why certain research is not done, a certain examination

20 is -- some data are not available.

21 The question is whether you know why this happened. Let me first

22 of all ask you, do you have any factual knowledge of why it did not

23 happen, so not in theory, but first of all, whether you know anything

24 about it, why, in these cases, certain facts were not -- medical facts

25 were not established.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no knowledge about why this

2 was not done. Factual, no, I don't know, because that's not that has not

3 been written here.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Would your field of expertise, could that give an

5 answer to that question? Is the forensic medicine a field of expertise

6 which could answer the question why a certain examination or certain data

7 have not been collected?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Theoretically speaking, forensic

9 medicine at the time involved in, among other things, also carries out an

10 analysis of omissions done by the doctor and would look for the reasons

11 why these omissions have been committed and in our law on -- our Criminal

12 Code, there is something that there is -- when treatment has not been

13 carried out properly.

14 Now, what I've spoken about, our field, forensic pathology and so

15 on. And then there is a second segment when we give our opinion why

16 something was not done and should have been done. This belongs to another

17 area that is covered by forensic medicine and that is a professional

18 obligation that we have together with the clinical doctors who are

19 involved in the treatment for certain areas.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but just the question if -- well, let's say the

21 entry bullet has not been properly described, does the -- your field of

22 expertise give an explanation as why it has not been properly described,

23 just give an example of?

24 THE WITNESS: [No Interpretation]

25 JUDGE ORIE: No. So the witness testified that there is no

1 factual knowledge, nor does his expertise allow him to answer this

2 question.

3 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

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

5 much.

6 Q. Witness, we have two other subjects to cover quickly but you spoke

7 about incident number 11 or rather I want you to speak about incident

8 number 11 and could you focus on what we call the medical documentation

9 which is relevant for incident number 11?

10 A. Let me just find it.

11 Q. Have you found the incident and the documents?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. What can you tell us, very briefly, witness, about what we can

14 think about this type of document.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know if

16 we can put it on the ELMO, I believe that we can. This is documentation

17 which is not under seal, is not protected.

18 JUDGE ORIE: As you will understand, I do not know that by heart,

19 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. You prepared for the examination of this witness so

20 therefore I take that you checked it but ...

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, this is ERN00269827. I

22 don't see an R which is a good sign. I believe that we can put it.

23 Perhaps --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just go into a private session for one second.

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

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ORIE: Could we just have a look at the document,

3 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, so that we double-check.

4 [Private session]

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 [Open session]

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Professor.

10 Q. Professor, here we are, we are going to have a look at this

11 document and we would like to hear your comments in relation to this

12 document. What does this document tell us, what does it not tell us, et

13 cetera, et cetera?

14 A. This document you can see that it's a medical faculty of Sarajevo,

15 Institute of Forensic Medicine. So this is the institution that issues

16 this document on the 1st of March, 1995. So this is when this document

17 was issued. We can see the name of the person, I'm not going to read it,

18 and then it says he was born 1937 then it says the examination-autopsy 8th

19 of September, 1993. And then it says the date of the incident, 7th of

20 September, 1993. Then under four it says that there was a diagnosis

21 established of the injuries and the cause of death. So that is a form and

22 in the -- this space, it says DG, diagnosis, V, transsclopetarium, that is

23 from a firearm, capitis, that is in the area of the head, regionis

24 frontalis lateris dextri, in the frontal area of the -- on the right-hand

25 side and then we have the signature of the person who has done this.

1 From this document, we found out that the person in question was

2 wounded not when this person died but when it was wounded on the 7th of

3 September and it says on the 8th of September, I don't know whether this

4 was an autopsy that was done on the 8th of September or that there was

5 just an outside examination that was done. I don't know. From this

6 diagnosis it says that this was a firearm injury in the in the right area

7 of the top of the head, I cannot answer what type of projectile had caused

8 the wound, whether this projectile stayed in the body or whether it went

9 through the body. I cannot tell you anything about the size of the injury

10 because there is no autopsy report, there is no description. I cannot

11 tell you about the channel and the direction of the injury because there

12 is no such a thing from an autopsy report.

13 If I had all this then I would be able to say this person suffered

14 such and such an injury one or more than one. Whether this was just an

15 entry wound or was an entry and exit wound and none of the questions we

16 discussed so far. We cannot tell anything even about the position of the

17 body or the head in relation to the oncoming projectile. This projectile

18 could have gone this way, that way, --

19 JUDGE ORIE: This is -- I don't count it but approximately the

20 15th time or the 20th time that you have explained to us that if you have

21 not sufficient data, that you cannot draw any conclusions. That point has

22 been made 15 times now or 20 times. It's perfectly clear already from

23 your report. Please proceed.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Yes. Thank you.

25 Q. Professor, very briefly, if we are carrying out an autopsy, is it

1 normal to keep a protocol of this or a record of this autopsy, an autopsy

2 report -- in the autopsy report?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us very briefly what would such record

5 have or be included in you can just tell us in a nutshell?

6 A. All of this that I have spoken about so far, number of, type of

7 injuries, cause of death and all the details that are necessary.

8 Q. Very well. And the document that we have just seen, can it or can

9 it not correspond to such a record of an autopsy?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Thank you very much. Witness, we are going to change the subject

12 now. We're going to examine the three elements that you have spoken --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I would like to, yes, I would like

14 to have a break in five minutes. Could you conclude by then? I asked the

15 Defence to conclude in approximately one hour it's now one hour and 20

16 minutes and even if some five, six or seven minutes were lost by sending

17 the witness out, nevertheless it's considerably more. Please proceed.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, with the assistance of

19 the witness, I will manage to do it.

20 Q. Very briefly, witness, you have spoken to us about your experience

21 in the field of suicides; do you remember that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Witness, in peace circumstances, what is the rate of suicide that

24 you know in relation to 100 and then -- 100.000 inhabitants?

25 A. In war --

1 MR. MUNDIS: Objection.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mundis.

3 MR. MUNDIS: This is both irrelevant and is a subject matter that

4 is outside the scope of the expertise of this witness.

5 JUDGE ORIE: The witness might have some knowledge about if you

6 study patients of suicide, you might have some knowledge as to the

7 frequency of -- I do not know, usually it takes more to send the witness

8 out and let's show that it's relevant, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, within the next

9 one or two questions or otherwise. Five minutes will be gone any how.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Witness, could you please focus on my questions and just answer

12 with a yes or no when it's possible. Do you know the rates of suicide in

13 normal circumstances; yes or no?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Thank you. What is the rate in normal circumstances for 100.000

16 inhabitants?

17 A. I cannot give you in figures now an answer, but it is well-known

18 that in normal circumstances --

19 Q. If you don't know, Professor, then I'm sorry just tell me that you

20 don't know. I don't want to vex you.

21 A. Your Honour, with your leave, it depends from an area to another

22 area. I'm speaking about peace circumstances, peace conditions as far as

23 I understand that's what's important and in some extraordinary

24 circumstances and because I have written a book about suicide, from 1920

25 until 1990, based on the autopsy material at the institute of forensic

1 medicine I can answer that but --

2 Q. Yes, but for the moment, I'm not talking about extraordinary

3 circumstances, Professor, I'd just like a rate. If you have it, that's

4 fine. If you don't, we'll just go on to another subject.

5 A. This is what my answer is: The relation between murder and

6 suicide is 1:5 that is in favour of a suicide. There is more suicide than

7 murder, than homicide and that it also depends on sex.

8 Q. Thank you very much, Witness. You also mentioned torture victims

9 and you said that you have a lot of experience in the area of torture,

10 scientifically speaking. My question is the following: Do you know or do

11 you have an occasion to find information in relation to torture that was

12 practised in Sarajevo in that part of Sarajevo that remained under the

13 control of the so-called Presidency forces.

14 MR. MUNDIS: Objection. Relevance, Mr. President.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Your objection is sustained. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you

17 have one minute left.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will finish.

19 Thank you.

20 Q. I'm going to finish on two points. Witness, can you tell us very

21 briefly if an analysis, the way that you do them, is it possible to

22 establish the cause of death and here, I am not talking about sniping, but

23 I'm talking about shelling. That is, I take into consideration other

24 projectiles, for instance, shrapnel.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mundis.

1 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President, this goes beyond the scope

2 of the expert's report and it's also not included in the Rule 65 ter

3 summary submitted with respect to this witness.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't think so. The witness

6 himself spoke about projectiles. He was talking about different things.

7 It was on the basis of this that I'm asking this question.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- all this goes quicker. Can a forensic

9 medical expert establish the cause of death in cases where someone has

10 become the victim of shrapnel caused by shelling?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely yes.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. And this is my

13 very last question.

14 Q. Do you know if you, as an expert, do you know whether chemical or

15 mechanographic analysis of projectiles can establish whether these

16 projectiles come from the same object and if they have exploded -- once

17 having exploded?

18 A. If you do find that fragment, then ballistic expert has to carry

19 analysis and he can answer that question.

20 Q. No, I was speaking about chemical, mechanical, graphic analysis.

21 Do you know if it is scientifically possible to, having conducted all of

22 the above analyses, is it possible to establish whether several fragments

23 come from the same object, from the same shell, for instance, at their

24 origin?

25 A. I did understand the question but ballistic expert, if he -- if

1 projectile fragments are found in the body I can establish the cause of

2 death but then one fragments or several fragments can be passed on to the

3 ballistic expert and then he can establish whether this has come from the

4 same shell or the same projectile.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Do I correctly understand you answer that your

6 expertise gives no answer to that question, whereas a ballistic expert

7 might have an answer to that.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A ballistic expert must answer that

9 question while I can talk about the cause of death.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't think

11 that my question was properly translated. I'll have to -- I would like to

12 reformulate it one more time with your leave.

13 Q. Do you know if chemical analysis or mechanographical analysis,

14 those two types of analysis can allow to establish whether certain

15 fragments, shrapnel fragments belonged at their origin to the same shell

16 or to several shells.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- may I ask you: Is your knowledge of

18 the technology just mentioned by Defence counsel sufficient to answer the

19 question whether these techniques could allow to establish that different

20 fragments of -- that have been found are originating from the same shell?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No doctor can have such knowledge to

22 answer such a question. That is not within the field of the expertise of

23 a doctor, of a medical expert.

24 JUDGE ORIE: You stated a time when doctors knew that everything

25 is over; is that a correct understanding of your answer? We'll adjourn

1 until ten minutes past 6.00.

2 --- Recess taken at 5.50 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 6.13 p.m.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mundis.

5 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, last week, the Prosecution advised the

6 Chamber that we would have an opinion today with respect to the report of

7 the demography expert Dr. Radovanovic.

8 JUDGE ORIE: The time you need to prepare for cross-examination.

9 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President, we would object to the tender of

10 that report and would respectfully request four hours for

11 cross-examination of that expert.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And your objections are therefore you -- you don't

13 take the full 30 days then you now have expressed yourself.

14 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mundis.

16 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, although I did not hear you say the words that

17 you had no further questions, I assume that that was just last question

18 before the break.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I mentioned -- I spoke

20 about my last question, Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Confuse us

22 now and then.

23 Mr. Mundis, are you ready to cross-examine the expert witness?

24 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Dunjic, you will now be examined by counsel

1 for the Prosecution.

2 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, with the assistance of the usher I

3 would ask that the witness be provided with a blank piece of A4 paper,

4 please.

5 Cross-examined by Mr. Mundis:

6 Q. Witness, if you could, I'd like to focus your attention on sniping

7 incident number 4, the one which you discussed at length during your

8 testimony here this afternoon. I would like you to draw a picture of the

9 back, a human back, and indicate the various anatomical parts that are

10 referred to in the medical report associated with sniping incident number

11 4.

12 A. Just a minute, let me find it. According to the medical

13 documentation --

14 JUDGE ORIE: If it would be possible for you to make your drawings

15 when the piece of paper is on the ELMO, then we are better able to follow.

16 Yes.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the back of a human body

18 according to medical documentation as it has been written down here and

19 that's how I'm going to interpret it.

20 Bullet wound caused entry through the -- an entry wound through

21 the right hemithorax of the back extension of the 5th cervical ring. This

22 is the right hemithorax, if we take this to be part of the diaphragm, we

23 have one shoulder-blade here and the other one here and here we have the

24 right hemithorax. Let's say that it is number five, that these are the

25 last extensions. This is the right hemithorax, point number five and it

1 goes through the left, as it says in the document, upholstery. This would

2 be the direction.

3 If we look at this from above, as I drew it, in order for it to be

4 clear this is the left hand, here we have -- this is the left arm, we have

5 we have the right arm, so the projectile, this is the end of the spine.

6 The projectile goes in this direction and what I said, Mr. President, -- I

7 don't have a detailed description so I can't say whether the projectile

8 goes in this direction or under the skin in this direction, but this is

9 the direction if this is the entry wound, if the entry wound is located

10 here. The position of the body which he described and I drew it here,

11 this was a position of the body and this was the direction from which the

12 projectile came in his opinion or perhaps it was this direction, it

13 doesn't matter so it's all on the left.

14 So here we have sin, left, and dex, right. They're the Latin

15 terms. He had the entry wound here, if you compare it to the image here

16 you can see that the projectile followed this route or it followed this

17 second route according to the description provided to Mr. Prosecutor, so

18 this is how it stands in the description which is why I said in my

19 opinion, in my report, that it's essential for me to determine with

20 precision -- well, if this is the human body, here we have the spine, here

21 we have one shoulder-blade and here we have the other one. It's essential

22 to determine whether the projectile entered the right hemithorax here

23 because this is where the 5th vertebrae is located more or less or did it

24 enter here?

25 So I have the direction according to which it went left, but I

1 don't know whether it descended or whether it ascended and we also have

2 the sloping terrain on which the body was located to given these

3 characteristics of the channel, given both of these routes it's possible

4 to establish where they fired from below or from above in this direction

5 because of the location of the entry wound, the importance of the location

6 of the entry wound and determining the channel wound these are things that

7 I simply can't find here; it's not mentioned. All they mention is the

8 right hemithorax and nothing else, the 5th vertebrae and the left

9 so-called upholstery.

10 MR. MUNDIS:

11 Q. Witness, with respect to the testimony of the victim in respect to

12 this incident, in preparing your report, did you read the transcripts of

13 his evidence as provided in the courtroom before the Trial Chamber?

14 A. That would be it.

15 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, it appears the witness is holding the

16 OTP witness statement.

17 JUDGE ORIE: It looks as if he's showing a witness statement but

18 perhaps could you -- it could not be put on the ELMO, but -- could we just

19 have a look at the document you just pointed at so that -- without having

20 to close the ...

21 When the witness referred to a document while answering the last

22 question, he was referring to a document which bears in bold, "ezava

23 zvedoka" [phoen] which has ERN number 03041180 up till 83 as the last two

24 digits and that's the B/C/S version which appears to be a witness

25 statement.

1 MR. MUNDIS:

2 Q. Witness, the -- were you shown or provided with one statement of

3 this witness or more than one statement of this witness?

4 A. I have this statement here and I also had the statement that was

5 previously provided on the 11th of November, 1995, the initial statement.

6 Q. Did either of the statements that you were provided with contain a

7 series of photographs attached to them and which had been marked by the

8 witness?

9 A. I can't see any photographs here now. I examined this carefully,

10 it's -- it's 52379B that's the number of the photograph and the video is

11 3280AA, that's what I took into consideration that -- as I've said. There

12 aren't any relevant medical documents in my opinion for my report.

13 Q. Witness, do you recall -- or are you telling us that you do not

14 recall seeing any photographs taken of this victim, you were not provided

15 that by the Defence?

16 A. No, I don't have any photographs here. I don't have any at the

17 moment. I saw them last time I came, as far as I can remember.

18 Q. So --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Just -- I just ask for clarification for the sake of

20 the transcript, the transcript reads now in page 72, line 12, 52379B,

21 should that -- did you refer to P3 -- could you please repeat the number

22 exactly of the photographs you mentioned please do it slowly so that

23 we -- you referred to some photographs.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] P279B.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I now have on the transcript P279B but I heard

1 a few more is it P3279B? Yes. Thank you. May I just ask for a

2 clarification; are these coloured photographs with apart from that number

3 on it some red numbers on each of the photographs as well?

4 Professor Dunjic, these photographs that you were referring to, are these

5 coloured photographs?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have the photographs. I

7 don't have them here.

8 JUDGE ORIE: You just mentioned the number that you have written

9 down for yourself?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I wrote them down but I don't

11 have them here.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Now it's clear to me.

13 Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.

14 MR. MUNDIS:

15 Q. Witness, let me return to the question of transcripts. Did you

16 read or were you shown the transcripts of the victim's testimony when he

17 testified in this courtroom in January of 2002?

18 A. I had a disc. All of it had been recorded on it. I read through

19 it and I saw the transcript.

20 Q. In the transcript at pages 2399 and 2400, the witness

21 indicated - he physically stood up in the courtroom and indicated - the

22 entry and exit wounds that were the result of the bullet that struck him.

23 Do you recall his testimony?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do you recall, as part of reviewing that testimony, that the

1 description of where the bullet entered his body was the spinal region

2 about halfway down his back?

3 A. I have to accept this as a guideline, as the case for all

4 statements, but until I see it, I can't confirm that because that's not

5 how it's described in the medical documents. The documents are important

6 to me and what I see, so seeing the witness, seeing the wound. I believe

7 that he pointed to the wounds in front of me but that's just one piece of

8 information. They have mentioned TH5 in the transcripts so if that's in

9 the vicinity of the 5th vertebrae, it could be at this point and it could

10 be here too but it's not medically relevant to me, if I don't have the

11 opportunity of seeing the wound and if I can't see where the exit wound is

12 located. So that statement is relevant to me just like any other

13 statement.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know

15 whether the drawings, which are now numerous, the witness' drawings will

16 be tendered or marked for the purpose of identification but if this is the

17 case, it would be good if we could avoid having too many elements because

18 we will completely lose our bearings otherwise.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as a matter of fact, I have been wondering since

20 the witness used some other sketches as well during the

21 examination-in-chief whether there would be a way of perhaps numbering

22 them and the order he used them and I leave it to the parties. It was not

23 quite clear to me whether some of the sketches were just illustrations or

24 whether they were really be needed to tendered into evidence I leave it to

25 the parties but if you intend to tender these sketches in evidence, it

1 should be properly recorded.

2 Mr. Mundis, I leave it up to you.

3 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

4 Q. Witness, if you could return to the picture of the back region, if

5 you could place that on the ELMO.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please assist the witness.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you referring to this one?

8 MR. MUNDIS: Yes.

9 Q. I believe you also indicated without marking other locations which

10 the witness said or could have been referring to when he said or when the

11 description was put forward as being the spinal region about halfway down

12 the back. Did you point to another location on that drawing that's before

13 you?

14 A. These two points here, these two points on this trajectory here.

15 It could be either here or here but I didn't see them. If you saw them,

16 if you can say where they were with precision, that's fine, but I didn't.

17 I couldn't see this in his statement because his statement and the medical

18 documents do not agree. The right hemithorax is this part here from the

19 spine to the right and it's near the lungs so the projectile should go

20 like this. I don't know.

21 I have to rely on the witness' statement and the medical

22 documentation. I only read the statement. I didn't see the witness as

23 you did, but these two elements do not correspond to each other, the

24 statement and the document.

25 JUDGE ORIE: It's still some issue that needs to be clarification.

1 You -- is the translation okay or --

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's fine.

3 JUDGE ORIE: You said that you had seen the transcripts and you

4 had a disc, I think you said. When you were referring to the transcript,

5 what do you mean exactly by transcript that you -- is that a transcript of

6 the ones you are just referring to or -- because Mr. Mundis was asking you

7 about a transcript of what a witness said in this courtroom and the

8 transcript, I can explain that to you, is where you see question and then

9 you have literally the question and answer and if one of the judges

10 interferes so a literal transcript of what has been said in this court.

11 Did you see such a transcript?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did. Yes.

13 MR. MUNDIS:

14 Q. Witness, you've told us that you did not see the victim referred

15 to in this incident; is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Did you see any photographs taken of the injuries that he

18 received?

19 A. No, I didn't.

20 Q. At any time, did you ask to see any photographs taken of the

21 victim?

22 A. No, or rather I asked to be provided with all the medical

23 documentation that there was, the photographs, the x-rays, et cetera, et

24 cetera. And what I have commented on is what I was provided with, there's

25 nothing else or rather I wasn't provided with anything else. I would be

1 happy to have a look at other documents if there are any.

2 Q. Did you ask the Defence counsel to provide you with any

3 photographs or to seek to have such photographs taken in the event there

4 weren't any photographs?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Do you recall approximately when it was that you first made that

7 request to the Defence?

8 A. I really don't know. That was when I received the request to

9 carry out the examination to do the report, and when I got the documents

10 that were handed over to me, I saw what was not there, what was missing,

11 and that's -- in that sense, I intervened. I did not receive anything

12 except what I have listed, so it is on the basis of the relevant

13 documents, the photographs, and the video and so on that I gave my opinion

14 because I saw that there was a lot of things that were missing.

15 In each individual case, I saw what was missing and I said,

16 "This was missing," but when that was, I really don't know. That was when

17 I received the request last year to look over this and to do the report.

18 Q. Do you recall the approximate month or time when you received the

19 request from the Defence?

20 A. Last year.

21 Q. Was it in December of last year or October of last year or January

22 of last year?

23 A. That was -- just a moment, let me have a look.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in the

25 meantime, could we just check and gain time, perhaps we can have the

1 photograph of ERN number.

2 JUDGE ORIE: No, I think you misunderstood what Mr. Mundis was

3 asking.

4 Could you please first -- you found the date on which the -- you

5 got your request or the month?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] September 2002.

7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... I did

8 understand, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, but please correct me, Mr. Mundis, if I am

9 wrong that when you asked about possible pictures that would be either

10 existing pictures or pictures still to be taken; is that correct?

11 MR. MUNDIS: That's correct, Mr. President.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.

13 MR. MUNDIS:

14 Q. Witness, did you ever indicate to the Defence that it would be

15 important for you in compiling your report if you were to undertake an

16 examination of the victim?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you recall approximately when you made that request?

19 A. When I was doing the report.

20 Q. I'd like to return now, Witness, to the testimony of the victim as

21 he gave it in the courtroom. Again, he was asked to indicate, to point on

22 his body where it was the exit wound was located on his body and he

23 indicated the right rear shoulder in the vicinity of his right arm, the

24 top of his right arm. Do you recall seeing that when you read the

25 transcript testimony of this witness?

1 A. Right shoulder, well, I really don't remember right shoulder, here

2 it says the left, so-called upholstery of the thorax area.

3 Q. And when you say it says here the left, you're referring to the

4 medical documentation; isn't that right?

5 A. Yes, it is most relevant for me.

6 Q. Witness, I'm suggesting to you that the evidence which is most

7 relevant is where the victim actually indicated on his own body where the

8 bullet entered and where the bullet exited. What would your response be

9 to that suggestion?

10 A. Let me tell you from my own experience, I cannot accept that a

11 priori because very often, the person who is hit, they know where they

12 were hit, for instance, in the thoracic area and if it came out the

13 opposite side, for instance in the front, he knows that the projectile

14 exited there and that is a relevant fact for you. But for me, as a

15 forensic expert who has to establish whether this is a projectile, to

16 establish what type of projectile, whether it's a direct hit and which

17 direction in the channel of the injury has, what's relevant to me is what

18 I can see only personally so his statement or his testimony must be

19 corroborated by a medical fact in order to have validity for the Trial

20 Chamber. That is the role of the expert.

21 So it's not just question of establishing the exit and the entry

22 location and the direction of the channel but to see that wound, that

23 area, to see whether it is an exit or an entry wound and what

24 characteristics that scar has. That is what's so important. I have had

25 that in my practice. There is a lot of confusion can occur, particularly

1 if the distances between the entry and the exit wound are very short, the

2 channel is very short. So the person knows they've been hit in the back,

3 but they don't know how the projectile, where it went. For us, for

4 experts it's very important how that projectile went through the body and

5 what it did while it was going through the body.

6 Q. Witness, you recall the position that the victim indicated on the

7 videotape that he was in at the time he was struck by the bullet; do you

8 remember that?

9 A. Yes. And that, for me, is a relevant initial data.

10 Q. I'm suggesting to you, witness, that that victim then came into

11 the courtroom and physically indicated on his body that the bullet entered

12 in the spinal region about halfway down his back and exited near the right

13 shoulder in the vicinity of his upper right arm. Would that be

14 consistent --

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object. We are in the same

16 line of questioning that was put earlier and the witness has already

17 answered.

18 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has given a long answer but not

19 necessarily an answer to the question.

20 Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.

21 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What you are saying here, if that

23 was so, that it was at the level of the fifth thoracic vertebrae and it

24 exited here in the left hemithorax, exited here. Now I'm telling you, can

25 you tell me about the direction of the channel? Does that correspond to

1 the medical --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Dunjic.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, I apologise.

4 JUDGE ORIE: A question has been put to you. Will you please

5 answer the questions? If the question is, for example, do you agree with

6 me that if the witness testified so that it would be a basis for any

7 further conclusions that it was on the left or in his -- in his leg, then

8 please answer that question and what you are doing very often is to give

9 further explanation about what that all could mean.

10 If Mr. Mundis is interested to know the consequences of your

11 answer, he'll certainly ask for it. Don't be afraid, he will. So would

12 you please listen carefully to the questions, first answer these

13 questions, and if any further information is needed, the parties will

14 certainly ask for it.

15 Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.

16 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 Q. Witness, let me try the question again. I'm suggesting that the

18 victim came into the courtroom and physically indicated on his body that

19 the bullet entered in the spinal region about halfway down his back and

20 exited here near the right shoulder in the vicinity of his upper arm.

21 Would that be consistent with the direction to which he pointed and the

22 position he was in in the videotape that you reviewed and which we all

23 looked at earlier this afternoon?

24 A. No. If you're asking me to give an answer as an expert, no, that

25 is not sufficient.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Again, the question was not whether it is sufficient,

2 but the question was whether it was consistent with the indication of the

3 direction the witness gave at the video. No one is asking you whether you

4 would draw certain conclusions. The question is whether what has been

5 just indicated to you, whether that would be compatible or incompatible

6 with what the witness said.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Even that possibility would not be

8 fully compatible.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.

10 MR. MUNDIS:

11 Q. Witness, I'm suggesting to you that the medical documentation

12 which you reviewed and which relates to this incident was incorrect, the

13 description of the injuries received was incorrect. What is your reaction

14 to that statement?

15 A. If it is incorrect or incorrectly written, then any conclusion can

16 be incorrect. I must, as a medical expert, forensic expert, and all of us

17 who are forensic experts and who operate in this manner, we have to stick

18 to, in such cases, we have to stick to medical documentation.

19 If there is a obvious discrepancy between the medical

20 documentation and this statement or the testimony of the witness which

21 here, in this case, this is the case, as you have said, then absolutely,

22 because of you, it is necessary to have an expert valid opinion. Through

23 an expert report, by examination of such a witness, I can correct the

24 medical documentation, I can say on the left-hand side of the hemithorax

25 there is no scar from a projectile, but there is such a scar in the area

1 of the right shoulder. In that case, through my expert report, I can make

2 the previous medical documentation null and void and I can make this

3 correct version as the witness indicated. Then I can determine, establish

4 the direction of the channel and then I can then put into perspective his

5 own statement if he says where the fire has come from and so on and this

6 is the road to the truth.

7 Q. In light of the fact, Witness, that you've accepted or let me

8 rephrase, do you accept the possibility that the medical report is

9 incorrect?

10 A. Apart from the testimony of the injured person, I don't have any

11 other factual element that could make the medical document null and void

12 except for what you're stating here to me now and what the witness had

13 said in the transcript and demonstrated himself in the courtroom, but I

14 did not see that.

15 Q. Witness, again, I would like to ask you if, assuming, assuming for

16 the sake of the argument, the medical report is incorrect, if that were

17 the case, and the victim's injuries were as he described them to the Trial

18 Chamber, I suggest to you that those injuries are consistent with a source

19 of fire being behind him as he indicated in the video that we reviewed.

20 A. Mr. Prosecutor, if this is true, which I cannot state for certain,

21 because I don't have any factual proof of that, his position of the body

22 at the time of the injury was possibly slightly more at this angle, but

23 let's state like this that the injuries near the spine, this is the front

24 area, and the channel went to the right shoulder, I don't know in which

25 direction it went, so he showed that fire came from here, he exactly

1 showed the position in the case that it is true what the witness stated or

2 rather what you saw and I did not see, that means that fire must have come

3 from these positions here. That is one thing.

4 Another thing, what I do not know, is the following fact: What is

5 the angle from here, is it this angle or this angle or is it horizontal?

6 From that angle, bearing in mind its defined position when he was hit,

7 that depends where the fire came from. We have a counter slope, that is

8 we have a sloping area, sloping ground--

9 JUDGE ORIE: Professor Dunjic, I know that you really need a lot

10 of information before you come to conclusions as an expert. The question

11 was quite simple that if the statement of the -- the testimony of the

12 witness in this courtroom would reflect the truth whether it is possible

13 that the fire came from the direction he indicated on the videotape or

14 whether there's any reason for which you could say that it is not possible

15 that it came from the direction as indicated on the video. That's the

16 question.

17 I must remind you that you should listen to the question. I

18 am -- there's a lot of very interesting information, you certainly would

19 have, but the first of all, we'd like to have your answer to a specific

20 question. So again, Mr. Mundis has asked you whether, if the description

21 of the wounds as indicated by the witness is correct, whether there would

22 be any reason for you, as an expert, to say that this is incompatible with

23 the direction he indicated on the video.

24 Could you please answer that question.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are many reasons why it should

1 be said expertly that it would not correspond to the direction that he

2 showed, and that's the photograph right here. He showed that there was a

3 straight line in relation to his body and now we're talking about the

4 right shoulder where the fire could have come from.

5 So what I'm saying is it does not correspond to what he

6 demonstrated. What he showed, it is not compatible.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.

8 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I note the time.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's approximately 7.00.

10 Professor Dunjic, since it might be possible that the parties

11 would like to have your diagrams in evidence, I would ask you to hand

12 them, to start with, all of them, to the registrar. She'll take care that

13 they are still available tomorrow. Would that -- apart from those

14 diagrams.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is this needed?

16 JUDGE ORIE: Are the bullets and the entrance -- let's just for

17 sake of -- perhaps it's better that you give them as well. There were

18 also some diagrams that you did not make yourself but that were

19 illustrative of what you told us. If you can miss them of course.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can, yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: I remember that we had pictures of bullet wounds and

22 those, yes. I think the big one you did not show yet but the other one

23 when the -- no, no, only one of that because the other ones have not been

24 shown to us as far as I can see.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the same thing.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Now, we've got nine for the price of one, yes.

2 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, I did not

4 see it go, but there was one document which was in green ink which we were

5 particularly interested in which is where the fire had come from had

6 relation to a vertical view.

7 Thank you very much indeed.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Professor Dunjic, I instruct you not to speak

9 with anyone about the testimony you have given until now and the testimony

10 still about to be given tomorrow.

11 We'll adjourn until tomorrow at quarter past 2.00 in this same

12 courtroom and if there is --

13 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, just one thing before we adjourn I

14 would be grateful if I could have some indication of when the Prosecution

15 could expect the exhibits for the next witness.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that's asked

18 and answered. I don't know why this has to be repeated, but I would also

19 like to have some answers to my last letter that I addressed to the

20 Prosecution.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's a good that you want an answer to your

22 letters. The -- perhaps I did not follow it exactly but the question was

23 when the exhibits would be received by the Prosecution.

24 Do I understand your answer that you say that's asked and

25 answered.

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have already given and I can

2 see that the case manager of Mr. Ierace who is nodding her head, I have

3 already given all this and who will give it to Mr. Ierace.

4 JUDGE ORIE: That's what I, as a matter of fact, heard you

5 approximately saying in French whereas the English transcript is --

6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, Mr. Piletta-Zanin informed my case

7 manager during this afternoon's session that first thing tomorrow we will

8 get those exhibits and what I'd like to know is it going to be five

9 minutes or --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just ask first because I think it's of no use

11 for you, Professor Dunjic, to spend your time on procedural issues we have

12 to deal with I will just ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.

13 [The witness stands down]

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

15 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Piletta-Zanin informed

16 our case manager this afternoon that there were some exhibits being

17 photocopied, some cassettes being prepared and we would get them tomorrow.

18 The state of affairs that that is simply not sufficient information given

19 that we are likely to have the next witness shortly after we commence

20 tomorrow's session.

21 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand you well that since Mr. Piletta-Zanin

22 indicated that you are to receive it by tomorrow that he should have

23 refrained from comment that you should not ask about it because he had

24 provided already this -- these documents; is that correct?

25 MR. IERACE: Yes, thank you.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Then if it is true that you indicated that it would

2 be received by tomorrow and that was even said this afternoon to the case

3 manager, there would have been no reason to give the comment you made,

4 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. What I would suggest, under these circumstances, to

5 you, is to say, as Mr. Ierace might not yet know, we achieved even quicker

6 delivery of these documents not by tomorrow but by today.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I still haven't

8 got my answer to the letter that I had written and --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will discuss that tomorrow. We will adjourn

10 until quarter past 2.00.

11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

12 at 7.06 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday

13 the 18th day of February, 2003, at

14 2.15 p.m.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25